Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: “Clusters” and “learning regions” are high on most national agendas for creating economic growth and helping disadvantaged regions catch up. The role of the public sector is often that of an “anima-teur”, supporting “innovation systems” by arranging favorable institutions and other background conditions. In Sweden new regional partnerships were set up to coordinate policies and make the welfare state more supportive of the needs of businesses, inspired by the European union structural funds. To some extent these policies go against the Swedish tradition of a unified welfare state op-erating independently of business interests. Furthermore, the aim is that the partnerships should be “learning systems”, i.e. that they should guide and control their activities through an elaborate set of evaluations, creating a system of “self-regulation” for economic growth.

The paper is based on a study of how far the partnerships have implemented the new policy. Its em-phasis is on describing and explaining differences among the regions. The evaluations that have been commissioned by the 21 regional partnerships give evidence of how well the partnerships function and where tensions reside. The most creative and challenging evaluations have been com-missioned in regions where regional actors have agendas of their own, i.e. where the national policy of “devolution” fits with regional ambitions. Only one regional partnership has attempted to keep track of economic indicators and use these to adapt their strategies.

The study is relevant from several perspectives, e.g. the reform of the welfare state, adoption of EU-policies by member states, implementation of new governance structures, the working of a weak network structure partly in conflict with strong national policy sectors (such as the national labor market board, AMS). It also brings out the contradictions in the national policy, simultaneously wanting “devolution” and still maintaining central control. The regions differ in the level of consen-sus that has developed and the ways that “policy entrepreneurs” can help such consensus develop. Yet, it is doubtful whether even the strongly cooperating regions will make an impact on clusters or innovation systems.

Clusters are supposed to develop as a kind of “learning regions”. The question here is if networks of public and private actors can be a “learning government” to support learning among businesses. Since networks are traditionally seen as a weak form of governance, the expectation of a learning capability seems particularily demanding, especially in a country with few traditions of government being involved with – or even subordinate to – the needs of business.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The film Saving Private Ryan begins
and ends with the United States Flag. That is to say, it begins and
ends with a symbol of the public realm, and more particularly, that of
the United States of America. The movie is framed by the public realm,
by the glorification of this realm, but within this frame the film
articulates a defense of the private realm. The plot of the movie is
driven by the imperative, save PRIVATE Ryan. Moreover, in the attempt
to save private Ryan several soldiers lose their lives. Since the film
also acknowledges that America’s survival is at stake in the war, the
film makes clear that the attempt to save private Ryan comes at the
expense of the public good. The more soldiers that lose their lives
saving Ryan, the fewer there are to fight Hitler. So, while the U.S.
flag is on screen at the very beginning and the very end of the film,
it is not immediately clear what this means. Does the U.S. Flag stand
for the private realm? In other words, is the film saying that America
is the particular country whose public realm is merely the sum of a
multitude of private considerations? Does the Flag stand for, to make
use of an old advertising campaign, “hot dogs, apple pie and
Chevrolet”? Or does Saving Private Ryan’s use of the Flag suggest that
America reconciles the public and the private? In other words, just as
the film seamlessly transitions from the flag to saving private Ryan,
so America seamlessly reconciles the public and the private. Whichever
way it goes, once must admit that the United States lends itself to the
controversy which Saving Private Ryan seems to address. For on the
hand, America is the product of a public call to arms – America has a
founding, and on the other, it glorifies even in its founding
documents, the private realm. So, on the one hand, there is the
Declaration of Independence, and on the other, there is Federalist #10.
There is another country which also very well illustrates the tension
between the public and the private – 5th century B.C. Athens, as
depicted by Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War, and
more particularly, in his account of Pericles’ Funeral Oration. Whereas
Saving Private Ryan calls into question the reconcilability of the
public and the private, Pericles, at least, argues that democratic
Athens perfectly squares the public and the private. This is perhaps
nowhere more evident than at the conclusion of the Funeral Oration,
where Pericles attempts to console the grieving mothers of the newly
deceased by informing them that they can always have more children. Had
Ryan been a citizen of Athens, Pericles, it would appear, would not
have followed Marshall’s plan (in the film, Marshall gives the order to
save Ryan). Is this because Athens, unlike America, subordinates the
private to the public, or is it because Athens understands this
conflict differently than we do? What has Athens or Pericles figured
out that we haven’t? In this paper, I shall compare and contrast a
contemporary film, Saving Private Ryan, and Pericles’ Funeral Oration –
an example of ancient political philosophy - on the question of the
conflict between the public and the private. And, I shall explore the
significance of this conflict, which seems to be a permanent feature of
political life.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Using models of Congressional coalition building we analyze the means by which AIDS activists, medical professionals, and urban politicians developed support for ththe Ryan White Comprehensive CARE Act.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper uses travel and tourism as a lens through which to reexamine U.S.-Vietnamese relations and the American war in Vietnam by focusing on the confluence of tourism and U.S. military education from the 1950s through the 1970s. In 1963 (and then again in 1966 and 1971), the Department of Defense published pocket guides for Vietnam that were at once tourist guidebooks and helpful introductions to Vietnamese history, society, and culture. Their appearance followed years of official efforts to educate American servicemen about the nature of the Cold War and the importance of properly comporting oneself while stationed abroad. Within this broader pedagogical campaign, the allure of exotic travel was viewed as an effective means of selling military service in Southeast Asia. Consistent with the government of the Republic of Vietnam’s effort to construct Vietnam as a site of touristic pleasure rather than insurgency and state repression, the military guidebooks touted the endless possibilities for sightseeing, diving, hunting, and water skiing along Vietnam’s miles of breathtaking beaches and in its lush, cool mountains. But the publications also very clearly identified how, as visitors to Indochina, military personnel were necessarily Cold War actors: “grassroots propagandists” and cultural ambassadors in the American campaign to defeat the Vietnamese revolutionary insurgency. Drawing on the pocket guides and a wealth of military education materials, including documents illustrating the troops’ responses to various Pentagon publications, I show how the military embraced leisure – and in particular tourism – as part of its larger military offensive at the height of the Cold War. In doing so, I consider the ways that tourism was used to shape a sense of American national identity that stood in stark contrast to the revolutionary nationalism of the Vietnamese liberation movement.

The paper is part of a larger project examining the intersections of history, tourism, and memory in postcolonial Vietnam, including Western conceptions of neoliberalism (focusing specifically on the case of “doi moi,” or renovation, in Vietnam in the 1980s and 1990s) during the last decade of the twentieth century. I argue that tourism has been (and, in important ways, has continued to be) intertwined with the projection of American power. I show how tourism’s attendant literature – guidebooks and pamphlets – has historically served both to construct contemporary ideological realities in the minds of travelers as well as shape their understandings of the very recent past, almost always in ways favorable to American global ambitions.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper will present and analyze tax provisions that are targeted to assist members of the armed forces. The paper will critically review these provisions to determine if they are serving their purpose and if not propose improvements.