From Empire to Nation-State: Explaining Wars in the Modern World, 1816-2001 Author(S): Andreas Wimmer and Brian Min Source: American Sociological Review, Vol

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

From Empire to Nation-State: Explaining Wars in the Modern World, 1816-2001 Author(S): Andreas Wimmer and Brian Min Source: American Sociological Review, Vol From Empire to Nation-State: Explaining Wars in the Modern World, 1816-2001 Author(s): Andreas Wimmer and Brian Min Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 71, No. 6 (Dec., 2006), pp. 867-897 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25472435 Accessed: 05/01/2010 12:02 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Sociological Review. http://www.jstor.org From Empire to Nation-State: ExplainingWars in theModern World, 1816-2001 Andreas Wimmer Brian Min University of California, Los Angeles University of California, Los Angeles on war The existing quantitative literature takes the independent nation-state as the self evident unit of analysis and largely excludes other political types from consideration. In contrast, the authors argue that the change in the institutional form of states is itself a are major cause for war The rise of empires and the global spread of the nation-state the most important institutional transformations in the modern age. To test this hypothesis, the authors introduce a new data set that records the outbreak of war infixed geographic territories from 1816 to 2001, independent of thepolitical entity in control of a territory. wars are more Analysis of this data set demonstrates that much likely during and because of these two transformations. For the transformation to the modern nation-state, the authors confirm this hypothesis further with logit regressions that control for variables that have been robustly significant in previous research. The results provide support for the main mechanisms that explain this time dependency. Modern nation states are ruled in the name of a nationally defined people, in contrast to empires, which a across or govern to spread faith the world, to bring civilization to backward people, to advance the world revolutionary cause. The institution of the nation-state thus introduces incentives for political elites toprivilege members of the national majority over ethnic minorities, and for minority elites to mobilize against such political discrimination. The over resulting power struggles the ethno-national character of the state may escalate wars can into civil wars. Interstate result from attempts to protect co-nationals who are politically excluded in neighboring states. The reported research thus provides a corrective to mainstream approaches, which exclude ethnic and nationalist politics as factors that would help understanding the dynamics of war. lives and memories of most contempo a postcolonial civil war. The list of current con The raries have been shaped by the destructive flicts is long and includes entries from power of war. Entire generations fought and Afghanistan to Zaire. "Events of the recent past died in the two world wars. Throughout the have once again clearly demonstrated that the developing world, many remember the armed world is not yet ready for perpetual peace" struggles for independence or have experienced (Hintze 1975:215). This statement is as obvi Direct to Andreas correspondence Wimmer, advice regarding research design and data coding; of of Department Sociology, University California Michael Hechter, Stathis Kalyvas, Jack Katz and Los 264 Angeles, Haines Hall, Box 951551, Los Rob Mare for offering us opportunities to present this CA Angeles, 90095-1551 ([email protected]). paper to various audiences; Lars-Erik Cederman, The authors thank Nicole Busse, Wesley Hiers, Michael Ross, Nicholas Sambanis, and Christopher Veronika Lenarz, Ani Sarkissian, and Nusrat Sheikh Winship for generous comments on a first written ver for excellent research of this assistance; Christopher sion article. Four outstanding anonymous Lars-Erik Xiao Indra Blattman, Cederman, Chen, reviewers helped to improve and clarify the argu de Felix Havard Rob ments. Soysa, Elwert, Hegre, Mare, All responsibility for errors of thought or fact Lillian Min, John O'Neal, and Michael Ross, for remains with the authors. American Sociological Review, 2006, Vol. 71 (December:867-897) 868 AMERICANSOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW ously true today as when itwas when penned Our study intends to overcome three basic 100 years ago by Otto Hintze inwhat is perhaps limitations of mainstream quantitative research the first sociological treatise on warfare. on war. First, most current conflict scholars Why do wars break out?Where and when are focus on short-term dynamics, such as the they most likely to occur? Despite the early impact of democratization over five years interest by Hintze and others of his generation, (Mansfield and Snyder 1995) or the effects of sociology has subsequently left the study of independence over two years (Fearon and Laitin these questions to other disciplines. Sociologists 2003). Recently, scholars have assembled ever have discussed war as a cause for other phe more disaggregated data sets to explain where nomena of interest to them, but rarely as an and when wars are fought (Levy 1998), includ explanandum in its own right. Thus, a long and ing detailed war event histories that decompose respectable tradition in comparative historical a civil war into various battle episodes (Raleigh sociology, stretching from the early work of and Hegre 2005) or studies of war theaters at the Ratzenhofer (1893) to Tilly (1975) and Centeno regional level (Buhaug and Rod 2005). (2003), analyzes the role of war in the making Meanwhile, macropolitical perspectives have of the modern, sovereign state inWestern largely been abandoned. Europe and beyond. Another tradition was ini The once prominent long-wave theories of tiated by Theda Skocpol's (1979) well-known war sought to explain the periodic recurrence of book, inwhich she looked at how wars helped world wars as a consequence of economic cycles to bring about the great revolutions of the past stretched over six decades (Goldstein 1991), or centuries, such as those of Russia and China. of the rise and fall of hegemonic powers that Meanwhile, research into the causes of war has compete for preeminence in world politics remained almost the exclusive domain of his (Modelski and Morgan 1985; Thompson 1988). torians and political scientists.1 Although there is no doubt that the past two cen Yet sociology has much to offer for the study turies have seen several such global wars involv of war. This article shows that that the macro ing the major power centers of the world, most historical processes traditionally studied by researchers now recognize that they do not fol comparative sociologists need to be taken into low a clear pattern of periodicity. In other words, account to arrive at a proper understanding of there are no cycles of a uniform length between wars. why, where, and when wars break out. We assert global an that two such processes play especially With this article, we attempt to revitalize this important role in the history of modern war: the macropolitical perspective by examining pat expansion of empires during the 19th century terns of conflict over the span of decades rather and the spread of nation-states across the world than across a handful of years as inmainstream during the 20th century. contemporary research. In contrast to long we That empire building and nation-state forma cycles theory, however, do not conceive of as an nor as a tion are major driving forces of war might not the globe integrated system, sin as a in unit of but rather as an arena come surprise to scholars well versed gle observation, world history or those familiar with the political for the discontinuous diffusion of institutional development of a particular region. It represents, forms. however, a new insight for the highly specialized Second, the standard units of analysis in quan literature on wars that has emerged over the past titative political science are existing independ several decades. Furthermore, considerable ent states, which are treated as continuous and once enter methodological obstacles need to be overcome for comparatively stable entities they over this hypothesis to be evaluated in quantitative the international community of states. This terms. To that end, we created a new data set of looks the fact that their institutional shape and wars from 1816 to 2001 that identifies conflicts territorial extension may change dramatically in all of theworld's territories, including most pre over time, not least as a consequence of war.2 colonial and all colonial lands. 2 For a general discussion of the problems associ with the of constant units?when 1A partial exception is Randall Collins's theory of ated assumption geopolitics (see summary inCollins 1995). they may de facto merge or split?see Abbott (1998). FROM EMPIRETO NATION-STATE 869 Tsarist Russia of 1846, for example, is con state, and thus are most likely to break out when to same unit as the Soviet Union ceived be the these institutional principles are contested.
Recommended publications
  • Language, Culture, and National Identity
    Language, Culture, and National Identity BY ERIC HOBSBAWM LANGUAGE, culture, and national identity is the ·title of my pa­ per, but its central subject is the situation of languages in cul­ tures, written or spoken languages still being the main medium of these. More specifically, my subject is "multiculturalism" in­ sofar as this depends on language. "Nations" come into it, since in the states in which we all live political decisions about how and where languages are used for public purposes (for example, in schools) are crucial. And these states are today commonly iden­ tified with "nations" as in the term United Nations. This is a dan­ gerous confusion. So let me begin with a few words about it. Since there are hardly any colonies left, practically all of us today live in independent and sovereign states. With the rarest exceptions, even exiles and refugees live in states, though not their own. It is fairly easy to get agreement about what constitutes such a state, at any rate the modern model of it, which has become the template for all new independent political entities since the late eighteenth century. It is a territory, preferably coherent and demarcated by frontier lines from its neighbors, within which all citizens without exception come under the exclusive rule of the territorial government and the rules under which it operates. Against this there is no appeal, except by authoritarian of that government; for even the superiority of European Community law over national law was established only by the decision of the constituent SOCIAL RESEARCH, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Equity Office Task Force Final Proposal
    2020 Office of Equity Task Force Final Proposal OFFICE OF EQUITY TASK FORCE FINAL PROPOSAL To request this document in another format, call 360-236-4110. Deaf or hard of hearing customers, please call 711 (Washington Relay) or email [email protected]. Para solicitar este documento en otro formato, llame al 360-236-4110. Clientes sordos o con problemas de audición, favor de llamar al 711 (servicios de relé de Washington) o envíe un correo electrónico a [email protected]. Task Force Staff: LinhPhung Huynh, Project Manager Esmael López, Community Engagement Coordinator Hannah Fernald, Administrative Coordinator For more information / Para más información: Christy Curwick Hoff Manager, Governor’s Interagency Council on Health Disparities 360-688-4699 [email protected] Website: www.healthequity.wa.gov & healthequity.wa.gov/TheCouncilsWork/OfficeofEquityTaskForceInformation Statement of Acknowledgement We are indebted to those who came before us, and we recognize that efforts in diversity, equity, and inclusion did not begin with this Task Force nor will they begin with the Office of Equity. We recognize and honor the tremendous efforts our communities, agency staff and leaders, and legislators have contributed to advancing DEI throughout our state and within our government. This includes the work over many years to identify and implement best practices, to demand transparency and accountability, and to establish the Washington State Office of Equity in statute. We urge our state leaders to remain committed to advancing these efforts and ensure this commitment is manifested through meaningful change and tangible benefit for communities across the state. We are deeply grateful to all those who traveled beside us on this yearlong journey.
    [Show full text]
  • World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability
    World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability Professor Amy Chua, Yale Law School New York, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 2004 This book is about a phenomenon—pervasive outside the West yet rarely acknowledged, indeed often viewed as taboo—that turns free market democracy into an engine of ethnic conflagration. The phenomenon I refer to is that of market-dominant minorities: ethnic minorities who, for widely varying reasons, tend under market conditions to dominate economically, often to a startling extent, the “indigenous” majorities around them. Market-dominant minorities can be found in every corner of the world. The Chinese are a market-dominant minority not just in the Philippines but throughout Southeast Asia. In 1998, Chinese Indonesians, only 3 percent of the population, controlled roughly 70 percent of Indonesia’s private economy, including all of the country’s largest conglomerates. More recently, in Burma, entrepreneurial Chinese have literally taken over the economies of Mandalay and Rangoon. Whites are a market- dominant minority in South Africa—and, in a more complicated sense, in Brazil, Ecuador, Guatemala, and much of Latin America. Lebanese are a market-dominant minority in West Africa. Ibo are a market-dominant minority in Nigeria. Croats were a market-dominant minority in the former Yugoslavia. And Jews are almost certainly a market-dominant minority in post-Communist Russia. Market-dominant minorities are the Achilles’ heel of free market democracy. In societies with a market-dominant ethnic minority, markets and democracy favor not just different people, or different classes, but different ethnic groups.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nation-State and Global Order: a Historical Introduction to Contemporary Politics SECOND EDITION
    EXCERPTED FROM The Nation-State and Global Order: A Historical Introduction to Contemporary Politics SECOND EDITION Walter C. Opello, Jr. and Stephen J. Rosow Copyright © 2004 ISBNs: 1-58826-289-8 pb 1800 30th Street, Ste. 314 Boulder, CO 80301 USA telephone 303.444.6684 fax 303.444.0824 This excerpt was downloaded from the Lynne Rienner Publishers website www.rienner.com i Introduction: A Historical Approach to the State and Global Order During the 1970s, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher blamed Britain’s eco- nomic malaise and decline as a world power on the welfare-state programs put in place by the Labour Party after World War II. She and her Tory Party began to dismantle the welfare state by selling off nationalized industries, reducing social programs, and implementing monetarist economic policies. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan, president of the United States, was elected on a similar neoliberal agenda. To the Thatcherite critique of the welfare state, Reagan and his Republican Party added to their list of causes of the United States’ economic malaise the hedonism of the 1960s, the rise of the new left, the anti–Vietnam War movement, the radicalization of the civil rights movement, and, later, the rise of feminism. In 1989, the Soviet Union withdrew from Eastern Europe and, in 1991, collapsed, thus ending the bipolar system that had divided the world into two spheres of influence, one American and one Soviet, since the end of World War II. As Russian power faded and the United States emerged dur- ing the 1990s as the world’s only superpower, the neoliberal agenda articu- lated by Thatcher and Reagan began to spread to the major states in Europe, including Russia and the states of Eastern Europe, and beyond to states in Asia, Latin America, and even Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • Sixth Annual Grotius Lecture: World on Fire Amy Chua
    American University International Law Review Volume 19 | Issue 6 Article 2 2004 Sixth Annual Grotius Lecture: World on Fire Amy Chua Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Chua, Amy. "Sixth Annual Grotius Lecture: World on Fire." American University International Law Review 19, no. 6 (2004): 1239-1253. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SIXTH ANNUAL GROTIUS LECTURE:* WORLD ON FIRE AMY CHUA** Many thanks to all of you for coming this evening. It's a great pleasure and honor for me to be giving the Grotius Lecture this year. I'm very grateful to Hannah Buxbaum, Charlotte Ku, and Anne- Marie Slaughter for inviting me. Many thanks also to Danny Brad- low and to the American University, Washington College of Law for co-sponsoring this event and to Upendra Baxi for commenting. My plan is to speak for about thirty minutes. I'll start by presenting the main thesis of my book, World on Fire,1 and I'll try to illustrate that thesis with examples from specific countries, from Indonesia to Bo- livia to Russia to Sierra Leone. I'll then shift my focus to the United States and how it fits into the picture.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ultimate Intervention: Revitalising the UN Trusteeship Council for the 21St Century
    Centre for European and Asian Studies at Norwegian School of Management Elias Smiths vei 15 PO Box 580 N-1302 Sandvika Norway 3/2003 ISSN 1500-2683 The Ultimate Intervention: Revitalising the UN Trusteeship Council for the 21st Century Tom Parker 0 The Ultimate Intervention: Revitalising the UN Trusteeship Council for the 21st Century Tom Parker April 2003 Tom Parker is a graduate of the London School of Economics (LSE) and Leiden University in The Netherlands. He has degrees in Government and Public International Law. He served for six years as an intelligence officer in the British Security Service (MI5) and four years as a war crimes investigator at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. He is currently a research affiliate at the Executive Session for Domestic Preparedness at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, working on the Long-Term Strategy Project For Preserving Security and Democratic Norms in the War on Terrorism. Tom Parker can be contacted at: 54 William Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA E-mail: [email protected]. A publication from: Centre for European and Asian Studies at Norwegian School of Management Elias Smiths vei 15 PO Box 580 N-1302 Sandvika Norway http://www.bi.no/dep2/ceas/ 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................3 PART I: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT....................................................................3 A) THE ORIGINS OF THE IDEA OF TRUSTEESHIP ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • WORKING PAPER Legitimizing Autocracy: Re-Framing the Analysis of Corporate Relations to Undemocratic Regimes
    WP 2020/1 ISSN: 2464-4005 www.nhh.no WORKING PAPER Legitimizing autocracy: Re-framing the analysis of corporate relations to undemocratic regimes Ivar Kolstad Department of Accounting, Auditing and Law Institutt for regnskap, revisjon og rettsvitenskap Legitimizing autocracy: Re-framing the analysis of corporate relations to undemocratic regimes Ivar Kolstad Abstract Recent work in political economy suggests that autocratic regimes have been moving from an approach of mass repression based on violence, towards one of manipulation of information, where highlighting regime performance is a strategy used to boost regime popularity and maintain control. This presents a challenge to normative analyses of the role of corporations in undemocratic countries, which have tended to focus on the concept of complicity. This paper introduces the concept of legitimization, defined as adding to the authority of an agent, and traces out the implications of adopting this concept as a central element of the analysis of corporate relations to autocratic regimes. Corporations confer legitimacy on autocratic governments through a number of material and symbolic activities, including by praising their economic performance. We identify the ethically problematic aspects of legitimization, argue that praise for autocratic regime performance lacks empirical support, and outline a research agenda on legitimization. Keywords: Complicity, legitimization, legitimacy, corporate political activity, democracy Associate Professor, Department of Accounting, Auditing and Law, Norwegian School of Economics, Helleveien 30, N-5045 Bergen, Norway. Tel: +47 55 95 93 24. E-mail: [email protected]. 1 1. Introduction «China’s done an unbelievable job of lifting people out of poverty. They’ve done an incredible job – far beyond what any country has done – we were talking about mid-90s to today – the biggest change is the number of people that have been pulled out of poverty, by far.
    [Show full text]
  • Nation-Building and Ethnicity1
    Nation-Building and Ethnicity1 There are many terms for defining human groups: they emerged in various societies with different histories and cultural traditions at different times. The meanings of these terms became more confused when they were translated into different languages. In English, there are terms to describe human groups such as “race,” “tribe,” “clan,” “nation,” “people,” “country,” “state,” etc2. Compared with these terms, “ethnic group” and “ethnicity” only appeared recently in the 20th century (Glazer and Moynihan, 1975: 1). These terms emerged in west Europe, the countries initiating the industrial revolution, then were introduced into other parts of the world accompanied by the western merchants, priests, and armies. These Europeans introduced their political and social systems as well as their ideology and values to other people by cultural influence or military force. “Nation-state” was the form of political entity first appearing in Western Europe, then adopted by colonies when they sought independence. “Nation” became an important term in international politics. “Nation-building” became a widespread political process among Asian, African and American countries, together with the powerful “nationalist” movement. At the beginning of the 21st century, there were about 200 independent countries around the world that were recognized by the international society (the United Nations). An important phenomenon is that political boundaries have not always been drawn according to human group inhabitance but often, oppositely, have been affected by wars, treaties, and international powers. Therefore, there are many different human groups living in the same countries; populations originally from the same group now living on both sides of a boundary.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Or Parliamentary Does It Make a Difference? Juan J. Linz
    VrA Democracy: Presidential or Parliamentary Does it Make a Difference? Juan J. Linz Pelatiah Pert Professor of Political and Social Sciences Yale University July 1985 Paper prepared for the project, "The Role of Political Parties in the Return to Democracy in the Southern Cone," sponsored by the Latin American Program of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and the World Peace Foundation Copyright © 1985 by Juan J. Linz / INTRODUCTION In recent decades renewed efforts have been made to study and understand the variety of political democracies, but most of those analyses have focused on the patterns of political conflict and more specifically on party systems and coalition formation, in contrast to the attention of many classical writers on the institutional arrangements. With the exception of the large literature on the impact of electorul systems on the shaping of party systems generated by the early writings of Ferdinand Hermens and the classic work by Maurice Duverger, as well as the writings of Douglas Rae and Giovanni Sartori, there has been little attention paid by political scientists to the role of political institutions except in the study of particular countries. Debates about monarchy and republic, parliamentary and presidential regimes, the unitary state and federalism have receded into oblivion and not entered the current debates about the functioning of democra-ic and political institutions and practices, including their effect on the party systems. At a time when a number of countries initiate the process of writing or rewriting constitu­ tions, some of those issues should regain salience and become part of what Sartori has called "political engineering" in an effort to set the basis of democratic consolidation and stability.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump, American Hegemony and the Future of the Liberal International Order
    Trump, American hegemony and the future of the liberal international order DOUG STOKES* The postwar liberal international order (LIO) has been a largely US creation. Washington’s consensus, geopolitically bound to the western ‘core’ during the Cold War, went global with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the advent of systemic unipolarity. Many criticisms can be levelled at US leadership of the LIO, not least in respect of its claim to moral superiority, albeit based on laudable norms such as human rights and democracy. For often cynical reasons the US backed authoritarian regimes throughout the Cold War, pursued disastrous forms of regime change after its end, and has been deeply hostile to alternative (and often non-western) civilizational orders that reject its dogmas. Its successes, however, are manifold. Its ‘empire by invitation’ has helped secure a durable European peace, soften east Asian security dilemmas, and underwrite the strategic preconditions for complex and pacifying forms of global interdependence. Despite tactical differences between global political elites, a postwar commit- ment to maintain the LIO, even in the context of deep structural shifts in interna- tional relations, has remained resolute—until today. The British vote to leave the EU (arguably as much a creation of the United States as of its European members), has weakened one of the most important institutions of the broader US-led LIO. More destabilizing to the foundations of the LIO has been the election of President Trump. His administration has actively
    [Show full text]
  • Dong 1 Asian Refugees: the Case of China, Vietnam, North Korea, And
    Dong 1 Asian Refugees: The Case of China, Vietnam, North Korea, and the International Community By: Leslie J. Dong Dept. of International Affairs, University of Colorado at Boulder Defended April 6, 2015 Thesis Advisors: Dr. William Wei, Dept. of History Dr. Tim Weston, Dept. of History Dr. Vicki Hunter, Dept. of International Affairs Dong 2 ABSTRACT Leslie Dong: Asian Refugees Under the Direction of William Wei The world is plagued by the largest refugee crisis since World War II. At this given time, there are more than 51 million displaced people around the world and nearly 35% of them originate from and remain in Asia. Due to the absence of developed regional institutions, refugee crises remain largely a state-to-state issue in Asia, making China (P.R.C.) a key player in addressing these crises. China's geographic location and its robust economic growth has not only made it an ideal haven for refugees, China's growing influence in Asia has also given it an unprecedented opportunity to establish itself as a leader in humanitarian crises. Because of the immense impact that China's refugee policies have on the surrounding region, this study seeks to examine how China formulates its refugee policies and why it adopts certain policies over others in different situations. By examining the driving factors for China's starkly different response to the Vietnamese refugee crisis (1978-1979) and the North Korean refugee crisis (since the 1990s), this study sheds light on China's policy considerations and its implications for the rest of Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • Read Middle East Brief 140 (Pdf)
    Crown Family Director Professor of the Practice in Politics Gary Samore Director for Research Charles (Corky) Goodman Professor The Great Thaw in Arab Domestic Politics of Middle East History Naghmeh Sohrabi David Siddhartha Patel Associate Director Kristina Cherniahivsky Associate Director for Research t has been a tumultuous decade in the Middle East since David Siddhartha Patel Ithe beginning of the Arab uprisings in 2010–2011. Bouts Myra and Robert Kraft Professor of Arab Politics of popular mobilization recur and echo across borders. Six Eva Bellin long-standing Arab rulers have fallen. Civil wars erupted Founding Director and continue in Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Regional and global Professor of Politics Shai Feldman powers jockey for influence, and, throughout the region, Henry J. Leir Professor of the states interfere in one another’s internal affairs. All this is Economics of the Middle East typically described as part of a regionwide revolutionary Nader Habibi hangover—the “post–Arab Spring period”—that will Renée and Lester Crown Professor of Modern Middle East Studies inevitably subside as the dust settles. Pascal Menoret This Brief argues that, on the contrary, the unrest of the past decade seems like Founding Senior Fellows Abdel Monem Said Aly an aberration only because, in several important ways, domestic political life Khalil Shikaki in Arab states was frozen from the late 1970s until the 2000s. It is that period Goldman Faculty Leave Fellow of authoritarian stability—when Arab leaders almost never fell—that was the Andrew March real anomaly. Before a huge increase in oil rents from 1973 to 1986 dramatically strengthened states and regimes, the domestic politics of the Arab Middle East Harold Grinspoon Junior Research Fellow Alex Boodrookas were just as tumultuous as they have been since 2011.
    [Show full text]