Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: A universal category and organizational form comparable with, though distinct from, the nation-state itself is now systematically discernable within the international system. These entities have their own national populations, territories, and governments. Their leaders have their own measures of domestic sovereignty. Their populations are animated by the forces of nationalism. And their existence and fate frequently have pivotal importance with widespread international implications. These entities are referred to here as “federacies”. This paper will argue that the incremental and pervasive appearance of federacy arrangements since the late nineteenth century constitutes the emergence of a new constitutive unit in the international system in addition to the state. I will first address some of the general conditions that provide for the genesis of federacy arrangements based on the meta processes that are at work within states and outside of them in the international system. Second, the paper will argue that states with federacies are now in some sense like the “multiperspectival polities” of the medieval age before the modern state system. Lastly, I will show how federacies are “like-units” with similar functional, capacity, and hierarchical characteristics.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The nation as idea, concept, and social reality has not been treated kindly by globalization. Associated with the backlash against irresistible historical forces, doomed to obsolescence by global postmodern culture, deprived of its institutional shell by the decline of the state, and with a questionable reputation among social scientists to boot, the nation appears to be rapidly fading into little more than a historical phenomenon. This paper offers a systematic reconceptualization of “the national” on the assumption that whatever the strength and outcome of regionalizing and globalizing forces, they can be adequately mapped and explained only if the dynamics of national states, societies, economies, and cultures are incorporated into the analysis. In particular, the national remains fundamental in the legitimation of social and political orders. I propose a systemic analytical framework and mechanism-based explanation as an approach with which to reconceptualize the national in the age of globalization. I present the “nationalizing mechanism” as a crucial social process in current global transformations, providing examples for its working in such diverse fields as postcommunist transitions, global business, and transnational movements.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In the years immediately following the end of the Cold War, there was a tremendous surge in UN peacekeeping and enforcement activities. In the period from 1988 to 1993 there were substantially more UN military operations ? over twenty new operations were launched ? than during the entire first four decades of the world organization. Great euphoria reigned in pro-internationalist circles in the United States as evidenced by its involvement in leading the humanitarian and nation-building mission in Somalia in 1993. Somalia was not the first time the United States took the lead on a humanitarian mission. The creation of safe havens for Iraqi Kurds in 1991 was a clear and successful illustration of what is called military ?subcontracting,? as is NATO?s ongoing presence in the Balkans. Moreover, three Security Council decisions between late June and late July 1994 indicated the relevance of military intervention by major powers in regions of their traditional interests: a Russian plan to deploy its troops in Georgia to end the three-year-old civil war; the French intervention in Rwanda, supposedly to cope with genocidal conflict; and the US plan to spearhead a military invasion to reverse the military coup in Haiti. Another illustration of subcontracting is the effort by Nigeria and other countries of the ECOWAS in Liberia and Sierra Leone, along with Australia?s leadership in East Timor. These operations are exceedingly complex and multidimensional. They are mandated the tasks of creating viable political and social institutions, rebuilding basic social and economic infrastructures, strengthening the rule of law as well as protecting human rights and demobilizing formal combatants and reintegrating them into society.Indeed, there are differences ? reasonable and otherwise ? about who should govern in international society and world politics. Should the state, through its government, have the ultimate and absolute right to govern ? regardless of all other considerations? Should the United Nations have the ultimate say about proper policy within a state? Should supranational organizations like the EU? Should regional intergovernmental organizations like the NATO? Should local communities? Does the answer depend on what policy question one is addressing? Does the answer depend on how much suffering or destruction is occurring? Should state entities be given the first chance at managing a problem, but not ultimate authority if they fail to resolve it? I will illustrate the subcontracting trend through the US intervention to establish security in Somalia and the subsequent effects of future sub-contracting efforts to address security in imploded states.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper focuses on the long-standing judicial dilemma over whether American political parties should be treated as “private” or “public” entities. I begin by reviewing the constitutional justifications that have been advanced by the courts to justify the expansion of their jurisdiction over political parties in the United States. Chief among the constitutional doctrines that have been used to give the courts greater control over parties and elections are: the political question doctrine, First Amendment free association principles, the nationalization of the Bill of Rights, the right to vote, and state action doctrine. I then look at the problems which the courts face in trying to balance the need for state regulation of political parties against the benefits of maintaining independent and autonomous parties in our democracy. I then attempt to offer some suggestions for striking a balance between the competing political values here. Political parties in the U.S. are neither completely “private” organizations nor fully “public” ones. Many courts have sought to find the optimal balance between these competing political values through their adjudication of state election laws that impinge on parties’ internal organization and campaign behavior. I end by making a few recommendations for how the courts might create bright line distinction in some areas of the law in order to preserve necessary state regulation of parties while preventing a further erosion of the independence of parties and benefits that such autonomy brings to the political system as a whole.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In theory, special purpose entities are entities whose compositions are corporate in structure and are established or chartered by the national, state, or a sub-unit form of government. In infrastructure provision, the mass transit authority is a special purpose authority that is established to provide the market-oriented service of transit operations. To understand the financial behavior of these providers of transportation infrastructure, this paper seeks to evaluate the corporate-like behavior of transportation authorities. This behavior is evaluated by applying corporate debt finance theory to public transit authorities. Considering the corporate-like structure of public transit authorities, multiple corporate debt issuing behavioral hypotheses are explored: the pecking-order hypothesis of capital investing, the bail-out hypothesis, and the market signal hypothesis. Findings indicate that although their enabling governments may subsidize transportation authorities, financially they appear to be more corporate-like than thought. Support is found for the pecking-order hypothesis indicating internal financing of infrastructure first and debt financing second. Although dependent somewhat on governmental subsidies, the role of own-source revenues with respect to debt acquisition appears to be strongly negative. Mixed results are found for the bail-out hypothesis with Federal IGR indicating an increase in capital debt, while both state and local IGR indicate an opposite effect. Mixed support is also found for the market signal hypothesis. The impact of interest costs is non-significant while the role of debt service funds and cash securities is positive as these authorities approach the debt market.