Data estimates suggest that up to half of all migrants return to the country of origin within 5 years of leaving. Return migration is known to be a boon for the local economy and a catalyst for political reform. However, these effects are conditional on successful reintegration, which is dependent on the preferences of nonmigrants. What causes negative attitudes towards return migration, given its significant potential economic benefits? I argue that nonmigrants are concerned about both the economic and political competition of returnees. Nonmigrants prefer to welcome back migrants who can bring financial capital and employment back home, but will oppose competitors on the job market when unemployment is high. Furthermore, nonmigrants are concerned about the potential role of return migrants as norm entrepreneurs. I test my hypotheses with a conjoint survey experiment conducted in Colombia, as well as an analysis of the 2016 peace referendum.
{"title":"The Prodigal Child Returns? Attitudes towards Return Migration in a Developing Economy","authors":"Melle Scholten","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf041","url":null,"abstract":"Data estimates suggest that up to half of all migrants return to the country of origin within 5 years of leaving. Return migration is known to be a boon for the local economy and a catalyst for political reform. However, these effects are conditional on successful reintegration, which is dependent on the preferences of nonmigrants. What causes negative attitudes towards return migration, given its significant potential economic benefits? I argue that nonmigrants are concerned about both the economic and political competition of returnees. Nonmigrants prefer to welcome back migrants who can bring financial capital and employment back home, but will oppose competitors on the job market when unemployment is high. Furthermore, nonmigrants are concerned about the potential role of return migrants as norm entrepreneurs. I test my hypotheses with a conjoint survey experiment conducted in Colombia, as well as an analysis of the 2016 peace referendum.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144113882","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Peter B White, David E Cunningham, Kristian Skrede Gleditsch
s This research note introduces a new dataset—the Governmental Incompatibilities Data Project (GIDP) 2.0—which identifies the presence of incompatibilities over governments for all countries in the world from 1960 to 2020. Incompatibilities over government involve organizations making maximalist claims related to the legitimacy of elections, the composition of the national government, or regime change. GIDP 2.0 includes information about which of these claims is present in each incompatibility year. These data can facilitate analyses of the onset, dynamics, and outcomes of both civil war and nonviolent campaigns, improve our ability to predict their occurrence, and allow for analysis of whether international efforts to prevent violent conflicts over government are effective. We present a series of descriptive analyses showing that governmental incompatibilities are common but not ubiquitous, and occur across time periods, and within and across regime types. These descriptive analyses further show interesting variation among the types of claims articulated in democracies, autocracies, and anocracies and across different types of autocratic institutions. A brief two-stage analysis shows that some factors commonly included in studies of armed conflict and nonviolent campaign onset have different effects on the emergence of governmental incompatibilities and on whether these incompatibilities escalate to mass mobilization.
{"title":"Presenting the Governmental Incompatibilities Data Project (GIDP) 2.0","authors":"Peter B White, David E Cunningham, Kristian Skrede Gleditsch","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf037","url":null,"abstract":"s This research note introduces a new dataset—the Governmental Incompatibilities Data Project (GIDP) 2.0—which identifies the presence of incompatibilities over governments for all countries in the world from 1960 to 2020. Incompatibilities over government involve organizations making maximalist claims related to the legitimacy of elections, the composition of the national government, or regime change. GIDP 2.0 includes information about which of these claims is present in each incompatibility year. These data can facilitate analyses of the onset, dynamics, and outcomes of both civil war and nonviolent campaigns, improve our ability to predict their occurrence, and allow for analysis of whether international efforts to prevent violent conflicts over government are effective. We present a series of descriptive analyses showing that governmental incompatibilities are common but not ubiquitous, and occur across time periods, and within and across regime types. These descriptive analyses further show interesting variation among the types of claims articulated in democracies, autocracies, and anocracies and across different types of autocratic institutions. A brief two-stage analysis shows that some factors commonly included in studies of armed conflict and nonviolent campaign onset have different effects on the emergence of governmental incompatibilities and on whether these incompatibilities escalate to mass mobilization.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143930926","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Extant scholarship on embedded liberalism (EL) emphasizes whether governments keep their promises to protect the risk-bearers of economic liberalization but overlooks its liberalization effect. In particular, scholars rarely explore how EL solves the time-inconsistency problem plaguing economic liberalization, i.e., governments may ex post renege on their policy promises made prior to the liberalization. To fill this void, in this study, I look into how social insurance shapes efforts to liberalize trade. I argue that institutionalized social consensus such as labor market institutions (LMIs) mitigates the time-inconsistency problem and encourages trade liberalization. I test this argument by examining how LMIs affect the making and design of preferential trade agreements (PTAs). Leveraging comprehensive datasets on labor laws and PTAs, an endogenous count model analysis finds that strong labor laws are positively associated with the growth of PTAs. Furthermore, robust labor laws tend to produce deeper PTAs with rigorous enforcement mechanisms. These effects dominate in democracies and are not a function of policy substitution. The empirical findings remain considerably consistent across alternative econometric estimators, variable measures, and model specifications, except those concerning enforcement-related hypotheses. Overall, this study demonstrates that pre-committed social protection facilitates economic liberalization, corroborating the core thesis of EL.
{"title":"Revisiting Embedded Liberalism: Does the Theoretical Possibility Meet Empirical Validity? Analyzing Labor Laws and Preferential Trade Agreements","authors":"Zhiyuan Wang","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf036","url":null,"abstract":"Extant scholarship on embedded liberalism (EL) emphasizes whether governments keep their promises to protect the risk-bearers of economic liberalization but overlooks its liberalization effect. In particular, scholars rarely explore how EL solves the time-inconsistency problem plaguing economic liberalization, i.e., governments may ex post renege on their policy promises made prior to the liberalization. To fill this void, in this study, I look into how social insurance shapes efforts to liberalize trade. I argue that institutionalized social consensus such as labor market institutions (LMIs) mitigates the time-inconsistency problem and encourages trade liberalization. I test this argument by examining how LMIs affect the making and design of preferential trade agreements (PTAs). Leveraging comprehensive datasets on labor laws and PTAs, an endogenous count model analysis finds that strong labor laws are positively associated with the growth of PTAs. Furthermore, robust labor laws tend to produce deeper PTAs with rigorous enforcement mechanisms. These effects dominate in democracies and are not a function of policy substitution. The empirical findings remain considerably consistent across alternative econometric estimators, variable measures, and model specifications, except those concerning enforcement-related hypotheses. Overall, this study demonstrates that pre-committed social protection facilitates economic liberalization, corroborating the core thesis of EL.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"88 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143915481","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
s US foreign policy observers have noted a decline in the frequency of expert witnesses appearing before congressional committees, while congressional scholars have documented changes in committee practices that have led to fewer and shorter hearings. These trends interact in systematic ways, although their relationship has never been tested empirically. Using original data and micro-level measures of individual hearings by the national security committees of the House and Senate, we demonstrate how time constraints and routine responsibilities limit the number of opportunities for expert witnesses from 1995 to 2020. We find some influence for chamber polarization on witness totals but less impact on the type of experts. We uncover significant differences among individual committees in their use of academics and think tank representatives. Our study is unique in its focus on both chambers, inclusion of closed hearings, differentiation between academics and think tank representatives, and attention to the public salience of foreign affairs. Shrinkage in the official marketplace of foreign policy ideas warrants concern, highlighting the executive branch's increasing dominance over military and diplomatic decisions, diminished legislative capacity, and public disinterest in international affairs.
{"title":"Where Have All the Experts Gone? The Shifting Marketplace for Foreign Policy Ideas on Capitol Hill","authors":"Daniel W Drezner, Linda L Fowler","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf035","url":null,"abstract":"s US foreign policy observers have noted a decline in the frequency of expert witnesses appearing before congressional committees, while congressional scholars have documented changes in committee practices that have led to fewer and shorter hearings. These trends interact in systematic ways, although their relationship has never been tested empirically. Using original data and micro-level measures of individual hearings by the national security committees of the House and Senate, we demonstrate how time constraints and routine responsibilities limit the number of opportunities for expert witnesses from 1995 to 2020. We find some influence for chamber polarization on witness totals but less impact on the type of experts. We uncover significant differences among individual committees in their use of academics and think tank representatives. Our study is unique in its focus on both chambers, inclusion of closed hearings, differentiation between academics and think tank representatives, and attention to the public salience of foreign affairs. Shrinkage in the official marketplace of foreign policy ideas warrants concern, highlighting the executive branch's increasing dominance over military and diplomatic decisions, diminished legislative capacity, and public disinterest in international affairs.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"110 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143910554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Simone Dietrich, Daniela Donno, Katharina Fleiner, Alice Iannantuoni
Gender mainstreaming—the incorporation of a gender equality perspective into the design, implementation, and evaluation of all aid projects—has become a signature policy tool among Western donors. However, advancing gender equality can be politically contentious and lead to backlash, particularly in autocratic regimes where women’s socioeconomic status is low. We argue that donors’ desire for recipient government buy-in creates incentives for them to pay attention to domestic policy cues, whose salience varies across regime types. Employing detailed data from the OECD’s Gender Equality Policy Marker, we show that donors engage differently with democracies and autocracies. Among democratic recipients, those with higher legal status for women have less gender mainstreaming aid, suggesting a “needs-based” logic. Conversely, in autocracies, donors respond positively to policy cues indicating the (domestic) political acceptability of gender equality. Our findings underscore the importance of treating gender mainstreaming as a distinct category of assistance whose application is attuned to domestic implementation problems. Beyond the study of foreign aid, we offer insights into how international audiences may interpret policy cues differently depending on regime type.
{"title":"The Politics of Gender Mainstreaming in Foreign Aid","authors":"Simone Dietrich, Daniela Donno, Katharina Fleiner, Alice Iannantuoni","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf033","url":null,"abstract":"Gender mainstreaming—the incorporation of a gender equality perspective into the design, implementation, and evaluation of all aid projects—has become a signature policy tool among Western donors. However, advancing gender equality can be politically contentious and lead to backlash, particularly in autocratic regimes where women’s socioeconomic status is low. We argue that donors’ desire for recipient government buy-in creates incentives for them to pay attention to domestic policy cues, whose salience varies across regime types. Employing detailed data from the OECD’s Gender Equality Policy Marker, we show that donors engage differently with democracies and autocracies. Among democratic recipients, those with higher legal status for women have less gender mainstreaming aid, suggesting a “needs-based” logic. Conversely, in autocracies, donors respond positively to policy cues indicating the (domestic) political acceptability of gender equality. Our findings underscore the importance of treating gender mainstreaming as a distinct category of assistance whose application is attuned to domestic implementation problems. Beyond the study of foreign aid, we offer insights into how international audiences may interpret policy cues differently depending on regime type.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"108 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143866187","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Technological breakthroughs carry great promise but often escalate economic competition and heighten public anxiety, creating new challenges for governments. We argue that breakthroughs trigger two distinct mechanisms that reshape regulatory politics: (1) accelerated incentives for regulatory arbitrage and (2) the potential for controversies to spark international public backlash. First, technological advancement generates forum-shopping behavior as private actors race to develop the new technology. Researchers and firms may seek to evade national rules by relocating to more permissive jurisdictions. Second, public unease about new technologies creates the potential for backlash in the wake of controversial applications. This backlash can spill across borders: accidents or misuse in one jurisdiction undermine support for research and commercial development elsewhere. Together, these processes link the regulatory fate of states, undermining their ability to regulate in isolation. We test and find evidence for these mechanisms in the domain of gene editing, a field that has been transformed by the introduction of CRISPR technology in 2012. Our theory and findings shed new light on the regulatory politics of breakthrough technologies.
{"title":"Innovation and Interdependence: Evidence from Gene-Editing Technology","authors":"Cleo O’Brien-Udry, Tyler Pratt","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf032","url":null,"abstract":"Technological breakthroughs carry great promise but often escalate economic competition and heighten public anxiety, creating new challenges for governments. We argue that breakthroughs trigger two distinct mechanisms that reshape regulatory politics: (1) accelerated incentives for regulatory arbitrage and (2) the potential for controversies to spark international public backlash. First, technological advancement generates forum-shopping behavior as private actors race to develop the new technology. Researchers and firms may seek to evade national rules by relocating to more permissive jurisdictions. Second, public unease about new technologies creates the potential for backlash in the wake of controversial applications. This backlash can spill across borders: accidents or misuse in one jurisdiction undermine support for research and commercial development elsewhere. Together, these processes link the regulatory fate of states, undermining their ability to regulate in isolation. We test and find evidence for these mechanisms in the domain of gene editing, a field that has been transformed by the introduction of CRISPR technology in 2012. Our theory and findings shed new light on the regulatory politics of breakthrough technologies.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143866260","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Arash Pourebrahimi, Madeleine O Hosli, Jaroslaw Kantorowicz
s Using a dyadic approach to explore voting behavior of European Union (EU) member states in the Council of the EU, we investigate the similarity in voting behavior of governments on three policy dimensions: left-right, authoritarian-libertarian, and pro-/anti EU. These policy dimensions are of interest also in other contexts, such as decision-making in international or regional organizations other than the EU. Our dependent variable is based on a new data collection covering the time 2010–2021. Our analysis, employing random effects binary and ordinal logistic regression applied to relations between EU states, confirms that larger distances of governments represented in the Council on these policy dimensions combined are related to larger distances of their vote choices. Larger distances affecting different vote choices within dyads are also confirmed for the pro-/anti EU policy dimension. Moreover, we find that closeness of member states in terms of their budget positions and of domestic public opinion on the EU are related to voting similarities. Member state differences in terms of voting power, by comparison, lead to less divergence of vote choice, for decisions based on the qualified majority voting rule. The length of EU membership, however, does not affect vote choice similarities.
{"title":"A Dyadic Method to Investigate Voting Behavior in the Council of the European Union","authors":"Arash Pourebrahimi, Madeleine O Hosli, Jaroslaw Kantorowicz","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf029","url":null,"abstract":"s Using a dyadic approach to explore voting behavior of European Union (EU) member states in the Council of the EU, we investigate the similarity in voting behavior of governments on three policy dimensions: left-right, authoritarian-libertarian, and pro-/anti EU. These policy dimensions are of interest also in other contexts, such as decision-making in international or regional organizations other than the EU. Our dependent variable is based on a new data collection covering the time 2010–2021. Our analysis, employing random effects binary and ordinal logistic regression applied to relations between EU states, confirms that larger distances of governments represented in the Council on these policy dimensions combined are related to larger distances of their vote choices. Larger distances affecting different vote choices within dyads are also confirmed for the pro-/anti EU policy dimension. Moreover, we find that closeness of member states in terms of their budget positions and of domestic public opinion on the EU are related to voting similarities. Member state differences in terms of voting power, by comparison, lead to less divergence of vote choice, for decisions based on the qualified majority voting rule. The length of EU membership, however, does not affect vote choice similarities.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143872811","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Can international law protect abortion rights? Drawing from past work on domestic mechanisms that give international law teeth, we argue that a strong civil society composed of women's groups and groups concerned with women's rights leads the government to comply with its international human rights commitments to women, specifically their right to abortion. Unlike that past work, though, we draw attention to the ways in which civil society can leverage the depth of their government's international legal commitment. Highly legalized commitments—those characterized by higher obligation, precision, and delegation—should help groups mobilize and give them access to international legal forums that can credibly threaten the government. Based on this argument, we expect countries that have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women's Optional Protocol, a highly legalized treaty, to protect women's rights to abortion when women's civil society participation is high. Estimating several statistical models to test our expectations, the results lend credence to the argument. Highly legalized commitments allow civil society actors to hold governments accountable to those commitments leading to more liberalized abortion rights protections.
{"title":"International Human Rights Law and Women’s Access to Abortion","authors":"Amelia Gaudio, Ryan M Welch","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf028","url":null,"abstract":"Can international law protect abortion rights? Drawing from past work on domestic mechanisms that give international law teeth, we argue that a strong civil society composed of women's groups and groups concerned with women's rights leads the government to comply with its international human rights commitments to women, specifically their right to abortion. Unlike that past work, though, we draw attention to the ways in which civil society can leverage the depth of their government's international legal commitment. Highly legalized commitments—those characterized by higher obligation, precision, and delegation—should help groups mobilize and give them access to international legal forums that can credibly threaten the government. Based on this argument, we expect countries that have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women's Optional Protocol, a highly legalized treaty, to protect women's rights to abortion when women's civil society participation is high. Estimating several statistical models to test our expectations, the results lend credence to the argument. Highly legalized commitments allow civil society actors to hold governments accountable to those commitments leading to more liberalized abortion rights protections.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143818963","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
s How has central bank independence (CBI) changed over time and across countries? This paper introduces the most comprehensive dataset on de jure CBI, including country-year observations covering 192 countries between 1970 and 2023. The dataset identifies statutory reforms affecting CBI, their direction, and codes four dimensions of CBI (personnel independence, central bank's objectives, policy formulation, and limits on lending). It includes two CBI indices and a regional diffusion variable. The broader coverage of this dataset has important implications. First, although this dataset coding decisions are generally consistent with previous research, countries included only in this dataset tend to have lower CBI and differ in other dimensions with those previously coded. This suggests that systematically missing data in other data sources may have effects on inferences. Second, extended temporal coverage allows analyzing the evolution of central bank governance for more than a decade since the Global Financial Crisis. Finally, the data show that although there is a global tendency towards more CBI, there is significant variance across and within regions, including numerous reforms reducing CBI in the past two decades. This data contribution is important for research beyond the study of monetary institutions and their effects.
{"title":"Revisiting Central Bank Independence in the World: An Extended Dataset","authors":"Ana Carolina Garriga","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf024","url":null,"abstract":"s How has central bank independence (CBI) changed over time and across countries? This paper introduces the most comprehensive dataset on de jure CBI, including country-year observations covering 192 countries between 1970 and 2023. The dataset identifies statutory reforms affecting CBI, their direction, and codes four dimensions of CBI (personnel independence, central bank's objectives, policy formulation, and limits on lending). It includes two CBI indices and a regional diffusion variable. The broader coverage of this dataset has important implications. First, although this dataset coding decisions are generally consistent with previous research, countries included only in this dataset tend to have lower CBI and differ in other dimensions with those previously coded. This suggests that systematically missing data in other data sources may have effects on inferences. Second, extended temporal coverage allows analyzing the evolution of central bank governance for more than a decade since the Global Financial Crisis. Finally, the data show that although there is a global tendency towards more CBI, there is significant variance across and within regions, including numerous reforms reducing CBI in the past two decades. This data contribution is important for research beyond the study of monetary institutions and their effects.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143805770","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Many international phenomena, from complex, interconnected processes to specific catastrophes, have been deemed “inevitable” by elites, policymakers, and scholars. Yet existing scholarship treats “inevitability” as an objective fact to be assessed retrospectively, rather than an expression of politics and contestation. To see the “politics of inevitability,” we argue, requires attention to the underlying politics of time through which inevitability is narrated and naturalized. Drawing upon the “temporal turn” in IR, we identify three constitutive practices of inevitability: problem definition, designations of agency and responsibility, and distribution throughout a political community. Empirically, we illustrate our argument through a discourse analysis of how mass death was produced as “inevitable” (or not) during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. The politics of inevitability does not cause the outcomes that are deemed inevitable, but through narrating time in a particular way, it provides the conditions in which certain policy choices become imaginable and/or desirable. This has vital implications for the ways that other future events are cast as inevitable, including climate change, war, and future pandemics.
{"title":"The Temporal Politics of Inevitability: Mass Death during the COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"Katharine M Millar, Yuna Han, Martin J Bayly","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf023","url":null,"abstract":"Many international phenomena, from complex, interconnected processes to specific catastrophes, have been deemed “inevitable” by elites, policymakers, and scholars. Yet existing scholarship treats “inevitability” as an objective fact to be assessed retrospectively, rather than an expression of politics and contestation. To see the “politics of inevitability,” we argue, requires attention to the underlying politics of time through which inevitability is narrated and naturalized. Drawing upon the “temporal turn” in IR, we identify three constitutive practices of inevitability: problem definition, designations of agency and responsibility, and distribution throughout a political community. Empirically, we illustrate our argument through a discourse analysis of how mass death was produced as “inevitable” (or not) during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. The politics of inevitability does not cause the outcomes that are deemed inevitable, but through narrating time in a particular way, it provides the conditions in which certain policy choices become imaginable and/or desirable. This has vital implications for the ways that other future events are cast as inevitable, including climate change, war, and future pandemics.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143805771","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：