s While the shadow economy seems to have both positive and negative effects on a country’s macroeconomy, almost all governments have attempted to control the shadow economy to prevent the loss of tax revenues and the attendant impact on the government budget. Even though official development assistance (ODA) has no formal link with the shadow economy, we often observe a relationship between the two in recipient countries. We argue that ODA can increase the size of the shadow economy in recipient countries through both government and individual-level flows of ODA to the shadow economy. We analyzed data on the shadow economies of 107 ODA recipients from 1990 to 2018 using both fixed effect and Driscoll–Kraay estimators. The results show that recipients receiving a higher volume of ODA are more likely to have a larger shadow economy. Moreover, the relationship between ODA and the shadow economy is stronger in more corrupt recipients. We dealt with endogeneity issues using the generalized method of moments, which supported our findings.
{"title":"The Shadow of Official Development Assistance: ODA, Corruption, and the Shadow Economy in Recipients","authors":"Chungshik Moon, Youngwan Kim, Da Sul Kim","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqae070","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae070","url":null,"abstract":"s While the shadow economy seems to have both positive and negative effects on a country’s macroeconomy, almost all governments have attempted to control the shadow economy to prevent the loss of tax revenues and the attendant impact on the government budget. Even though official development assistance (ODA) has no formal link with the shadow economy, we often observe a relationship between the two in recipient countries. We argue that ODA can increase the size of the shadow economy in recipient countries through both government and individual-level flows of ODA to the shadow economy. We analyzed data on the shadow economies of 107 ODA recipients from 1990 to 2018 using both fixed effect and Driscoll–Kraay estimators. The results show that recipients receiving a higher volume of ODA are more likely to have a larger shadow economy. Moreover, the relationship between ODA and the shadow economy is stronger in more corrupt recipients. We dealt with endogeneity issues using the generalized method of moments, which supported our findings.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140622882","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}
This article offers an ethnographic account of ongoing border conflicts in south Lebanon between members of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and residents in a south Lebanese border village. It emphasizes the specific experiences of this border population with foreign intervention and land expropriations. It places UNIFIL’s current intervention in a long history of Western imperialism in the region. It underlines how UNIFIL weakens the Lebanese state by taking over the sovereign functions a state typically performs. It examines current border contestations in a context of Israeli settler colonialism and its long-term role in shaping the livelihoods in south Lebanese border villages. It argues for the importance of understanding border conflicts and the work of international interventions in their specific local and historical contexts.
{"title":"UNIFIL’s “Blue Line” Demarcation: Spatial Ordering, Political Subjectivity, and Settler Colonialism in South Lebanese Borderlands","authors":"Susann Kassem","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqae051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae051","url":null,"abstract":"This article offers an ethnographic account of ongoing border conflicts in south Lebanon between members of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and residents in a south Lebanese border village. It emphasizes the specific experiences of this border population with foreign intervention and land expropriations. It places UNIFIL’s current intervention in a long history of Western imperialism in the region. It underlines how UNIFIL weakens the Lebanese state by taking over the sovereign functions a state typically performs. It examines current border contestations in a context of Israeli settler colonialism and its long-term role in shaping the livelihoods in south Lebanese border villages. It argues for the importance of understanding border conflicts and the work of international interventions in their specific local and historical contexts.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140622880","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}
Rebel groups often develop governance during war by establishing administrative structures, engaging in taxation, and providing social services to the local population. Rebel governance structures, however, vary depending on the extent to which they include participatory arrangements. Some rebel groups allow civilian participation in their governance during the war, while others have highly hierarchical structures strictly limiting civilian participation. This paper examines whether and how the governance activities of rebel groups and participatory arrangements and institutions that they adopt during the war affect the durability of peace. I argue that participatory rebel governance can be particularly effective in establishing durable peace after the war. Civilian participation under rebel governance facilitates civilian political participation after conflict ends, which, in turn, discourages the use of political violence in response to grievances. Using rebel governance data between 1945 and 2012, I find strong empirical support for my argument. I then demonstrate the plausibility of the causal mechanism in the case of Indonesian and the Philippine civil wars. By establishing a strong positive empirical relationship between rebel wartime governance and the durability of peace, this paper identifies another important effect of rebel governance on conflict processes and outcomes in addition to its demonstrated effect on negotiations between warring parties and post-war democratization.
{"title":"Participatory Rebel Governance and Durability of Peace","authors":"Hyunjung Park","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqae061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae061","url":null,"abstract":"Rebel groups often develop governance during war by establishing administrative structures, engaging in taxation, and providing social services to the local population. Rebel governance structures, however, vary depending on the extent to which they include participatory arrangements. Some rebel groups allow civilian participation in their governance during the war, while others have highly hierarchical structures strictly limiting civilian participation. This paper examines whether and how the governance activities of rebel groups and participatory arrangements and institutions that they adopt during the war affect the durability of peace. I argue that participatory rebel governance can be particularly effective in establishing durable peace after the war. Civilian participation under rebel governance facilitates civilian political participation after conflict ends, which, in turn, discourages the use of political violence in response to grievances. Using rebel governance data between 1945 and 2012, I find strong empirical support for my argument. I then demonstrate the plausibility of the causal mechanism in the case of Indonesian and the Philippine civil wars. By establishing a strong positive empirical relationship between rebel wartime governance and the durability of peace, this paper identifies another important effect of rebel governance on conflict processes and outcomes in addition to its demonstrated effect on negotiations between warring parties and post-war democratization.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140608164","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}
Renanah Miles Joyce, Theodore McLauchlin, Lee Seymour
s Foreign military training has become a key component of the United States’ security policy. What explains the variation in US training allocation across countries and over time? Past work on security assistance, such as training, focuses on its effectiveness and consequences, largely overlooking questions about which countries receive it in the first place. To understand what drives US military training partnerships, we conducted a global statistical analysis of training from 1999 to 2018, structured around four logics: building relationships through defense diplomacy, deterrence against external, interstate threats, capacity-building in fragile states, and promoting democratic norms to advance democracy around the world. We find that the four logics receive support, with relationship-building and response to interstate and internal threats most consistently so. This analysis demonstrates the different ways the United States has used training in support of the US-led global order and raises questions about how to achieve accountability given these multiple logics. More broadly, the findings also have relevance for understanding how other states allocate training in conjunction with, in emulation of, or in opposition to the United States.
{"title":"“Train the World”: Examining the Logics of US Foreign Military Training","authors":"Renanah Miles Joyce, Theodore McLauchlin, Lee Seymour","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqae044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae044","url":null,"abstract":"s Foreign military training has become a key component of the United States’ security policy. What explains the variation in US training allocation across countries and over time? Past work on security assistance, such as training, focuses on its effectiveness and consequences, largely overlooking questions about which countries receive it in the first place. To understand what drives US military training partnerships, we conducted a global statistical analysis of training from 1999 to 2018, structured around four logics: building relationships through defense diplomacy, deterrence against external, interstate threats, capacity-building in fragile states, and promoting democratic norms to advance democracy around the world. We find that the four logics receive support, with relationship-building and response to interstate and internal threats most consistently so. This analysis demonstrates the different ways the United States has used training in support of the US-led global order and raises questions about how to achieve accountability given these multiple logics. More broadly, the findings also have relevance for understanding how other states allocate training in conjunction with, in emulation of, or in opposition to the United States.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"163 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140608153","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}
This Special Issue questions the problem of international interventions’ persistence and multidimensionality by asking what makes interventions still relevant and for whom. In this introduction, we advance a dialectical understanding of interventions to study their diverse modalities and enduring mechanisms of order-making, with specific attention to space, time, and scale. We elaborate on Laura Doyle's interimperial method to highlight interventions' relational, transformative, and durable aspects. We interpret interventions as coconstituted by diverse, overlapping, and contradictory rationales and modalities. We stress the intertwined histories and practices of interventions as integral components of colonial modernity in relation to empires, imperialism, and their contemporary rearticulations. As a method, we identify three key historical processes for a dialectical understanding of intervention: the coformation of interventions’ state-building, economic development, and cultural practices; the coproduction of institutions and infrastructural systems; and the cumulative accretion of interventions’ infrastructures and imaginaries.
{"title":"Dialectics of International Interventions through Scale, Space, and Time","authors":"Monica Fagioli, Debora V Malito","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqae050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae050","url":null,"abstract":"This Special Issue questions the problem of international interventions’ persistence and multidimensionality by asking what makes interventions still relevant and for whom. In this introduction, we advance a dialectical understanding of interventions to study their diverse modalities and enduring mechanisms of order-making, with specific attention to space, time, and scale. We elaborate on Laura Doyle's interimperial method to highlight interventions' relational, transformative, and durable aspects. We interpret interventions as coconstituted by diverse, overlapping, and contradictory rationales and modalities. We stress the intertwined histories and practices of interventions as integral components of colonial modernity in relation to empires, imperialism, and their contemporary rearticulations. As a method, we identify three key historical processes for a dialectical understanding of intervention: the coformation of interventions’ state-building, economic development, and cultural practices; the coproduction of institutions and infrastructural systems; and the cumulative accretion of interventions’ infrastructures and imaginaries.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"439 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140608166","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}
This paper introduces new data on the creation of subsidiary bodies (SBs) by members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) between 1972 and 2020. Delegation to SBs is one of the principal means through which the UNSC acts, and these bodies are designed to carry out crucial functions such as peacekeeping, implementing sanctions, and investigating crises. Yet, no research has systematically evaluated their creation, design, and use. Our dataset includes a typology of all proposed and created SBs as well as information about their purpose and design. After introducing the data, we empirically analyze the determinants of SB creation. Multivariate regression demonstrates that SBs are more likely to be created when the preferences of the permanent members are aligned. Moreover, stronger bodies are more likely to be created during periods of high preference alignment, while middle- and lower-strength bodies are less influenced by member alignment. These results provide unique evidence demonstrating how politics affects the choice of when and how the UNSC responds to global problems. Our data and analysis paint a picture of a more proactive UNSC than is commonly portrayed in the literature, and these data will enable scholars to further analyze UNSC action.
{"title":"The Politics of International Peace and Security: Introducing a New Dataset on the Creation of United Nations Security Council Subsidiary Bodies","authors":"Andrew Lugg, Sloan Lansdale, Shannon Carcelli","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqae060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae060","url":null,"abstract":"This paper introduces new data on the creation of subsidiary bodies (SBs) by members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) between 1972 and 2020. Delegation to SBs is one of the principal means through which the UNSC acts, and these bodies are designed to carry out crucial functions such as peacekeeping, implementing sanctions, and investigating crises. Yet, no research has systematically evaluated their creation, design, and use. Our dataset includes a typology of all proposed and created SBs as well as information about their purpose and design. After introducing the data, we empirically analyze the determinants of SB creation. Multivariate regression demonstrates that SBs are more likely to be created when the preferences of the permanent members are aligned. Moreover, stronger bodies are more likely to be created during periods of high preference alignment, while middle- and lower-strength bodies are less influenced by member alignment. These results provide unique evidence demonstrating how politics affects the choice of when and how the UNSC responds to global problems. Our data and analysis paint a picture of a more proactive UNSC than is commonly portrayed in the literature, and these data will enable scholars to further analyze UNSC action.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140603871","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}
How is the space for contemporary interventions constructed? This article deepens our understanding of counterterrorism as a dialectical form of intervention by highlighting the importance of unifying rationalities in the creation of “ungoverned spaces” as abstract spaces for intervention purposes. We combine dialectical and decolonial thinking to track how unifying rationalities in Nigeria and Libya are deployed across cognitive, normative, and operational constructs. The article examines how interventions are cognitively tied to coloniality of knowing, being, and power, which exploit identity, religion, or societal divisions to justify ungovernance and normalize state and foreign violence. The simultaneous and reciprocal globalization of local security concerns and localization of global security predicaments facilitates the formation of abstract spaces for counterterrorism purposes. Empirically, our analysis shows how portraying Libya and Nigeria as ungoverned creates a void of meaning, putting external actors in charge of restoring governance and protecting human security, modernity, and civility. Interveners in Libya contributed to normalizing a broader spectrum of violence, frequently internalized by competing actors through their normative tropes. In Nigeria, state and foreign interventionism and counterinsurgency have been responsible for the widespread use of violence against entire communities.
{"title":"Abstract Spaces for Intervention in Libya and Nigeria","authors":"Debora V Malito, Muhammad Dan Suleiman","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqae052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae052","url":null,"abstract":"How is the space for contemporary interventions constructed? This article deepens our understanding of counterterrorism as a dialectical form of intervention by highlighting the importance of unifying rationalities in the creation of “ungoverned spaces” as abstract spaces for intervention purposes. We combine dialectical and decolonial thinking to track how unifying rationalities in Nigeria and Libya are deployed across cognitive, normative, and operational constructs. The article examines how interventions are cognitively tied to coloniality of knowing, being, and power, which exploit identity, religion, or societal divisions to justify ungovernance and normalize state and foreign violence. The simultaneous and reciprocal globalization of local security concerns and localization of global security predicaments facilitates the formation of abstract spaces for counterterrorism purposes. Empirically, our analysis shows how portraying Libya and Nigeria as ungoverned creates a void of meaning, putting external actors in charge of restoring governance and protecting human security, modernity, and civility. Interveners in Libya contributed to normalizing a broader spectrum of violence, frequently internalized by competing actors through their normative tropes. In Nigeria, state and foreign interventionism and counterinsurgency have been responsible for the widespread use of violence against entire communities.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140603687","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 prosecutions by US authorities help spread enforcement of foreign bribery laws to other countries? In this article, we explore this question by re-examining earlier scholarship that found that US prosecutions of foreign corporations under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) increase the likelihood that the corporation's home state will enforce its own foreign bribery laws. Using a conditional-frailty Cox model that allows us to model foreign bribery enforcement actions as repeat-events, we do not find evidence that FCPA prosecutions lead to sustained increases of foreign bribery enforcement by target countries. We also find that prior results are not robust to the inclusion of an important confounding variable: a country's level of exposure to corruption in their trading partners. Still, while our findings indicate a more limited role of US law enforcement in this area, we nonetheless see many promising avenues for future research on transnational law enforcement and its consequences.
{"title":"Transnational Legal Spillover? A Re-Appraisal of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention","authors":"Elizabeth Acorn, Michael O Allen","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqae071","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae071","url":null,"abstract":"Can prosecutions by US authorities help spread enforcement of foreign bribery laws to other countries? In this article, we explore this question by re-examining earlier scholarship that found that US prosecutions of foreign corporations under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) increase the likelihood that the corporation's home state will enforce its own foreign bribery laws. Using a conditional-frailty Cox model that allows us to model foreign bribery enforcement actions as repeat-events, we do not find evidence that FCPA prosecutions lead to sustained increases of foreign bribery enforcement by target countries. We also find that prior results are not robust to the inclusion of an important confounding variable: a country's level of exposure to corruption in their trading partners. Still, while our findings indicate a more limited role of US law enforcement in this area, we nonetheless see many promising avenues for future research on transnational law enforcement and its consequences.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"79 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140603789","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 Since the mid-2000s, state-building in Somaliland has emerged as a complex mixture of coexisting, competing programs, political aspirations, and foreign agendas. This article applies a dialectical approach to focus on the scalar relations among actors and models of capacity-building, from programs’ design to their implementation. Drawing on science and technology studies, I use the term “complexities” to describe the “multiplicities” of programs, actors, and different ways of ordering that coexist and overlap, sometimes in tension among them, other times in coordination. Specifically, this article examines two approaches to state-building in Somaliland: the United Nations Development Program’s institution-building and US Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded stabilization programs. Going beyond fixed binaries, such as international and local, homogenous and hybrid, state-building and state-formation, this article observes how these dichotomies are formed and how, rather than being separate, they combine together, generating techno-political arrangements. Somaliland’s complexity is made up of techno-political arrangements that are coproduced by both technical expertise and national political aspirations. Technical capacity-building programs, such as the redesign of the Somalia Institutional Development Project (SIDP), the creation of Somaliland’s National Development Plan (NDP), and the allocation of USAID’s grants, have become the terrain for political claims over the redistribution of resources and the control of state institutions.
s 自 2000 年代中期以来，索马里兰的国家建设一直是各种并存、相互竞争的计划、政治愿望和外国议程的复杂混合体。本文运用辩证的方法，重点探讨了从项目设计到项目实施过程中各参与方和能力建设模式之间的标度关系。借鉴科技研究，我用 "复杂性 "一词来描述项目、参与者和不同排序方式的 "多重性"，它们共存并相互重叠，有时相互紧张，有时相互协调。具体而言，本文研究了索马里兰国家建设的两种方法：联合国开发计划署的机构建设项目和美国国际开发署（USAID）资助的稳定项目。本文超越了国际与地方、同质与混合、国家建设与国家形成等固定的二元对立，观察了这些二元对立是如何形成的，以及它们是如何结合在一起而非分离，从而产生技术政治安排的。索马里兰的复杂性是由技术专长和国家政治愿望共同促成的技术政治安排所构成的。技术能力建设项目，如索马里机构发展项目（SIDP）的重新设计、索马里兰国家发展计划（NDP）的制定以及美国国际开发署（USAID）赠款的分配，已成为资源再分配和国家机构控制权政治诉求的场所。
{"title":"Complexities of State-Building in Somaliland","authors":"Monica Fagioli","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqae053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae053","url":null,"abstract":"s Since the mid-2000s, state-building in Somaliland has emerged as a complex mixture of coexisting, competing programs, political aspirations, and foreign agendas. This article applies a dialectical approach to focus on the scalar relations among actors and models of capacity-building, from programs’ design to their implementation. Drawing on science and technology studies, I use the term “complexities” to describe the “multiplicities” of programs, actors, and different ways of ordering that coexist and overlap, sometimes in tension among them, other times in coordination. Specifically, this article examines two approaches to state-building in Somaliland: the United Nations Development Program’s institution-building and US Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded stabilization programs. Going beyond fixed binaries, such as international and local, homogenous and hybrid, state-building and state-formation, this article observes how these dichotomies are formed and how, rather than being separate, they combine together, generating techno-political arrangements. Somaliland’s complexity is made up of techno-political arrangements that are coproduced by both technical expertise and national political aspirations. Technical capacity-building programs, such as the redesign of the Somalia Institutional Development Project (SIDP), the creation of Somaliland’s National Development Plan (NDP), and the allocation of USAID’s grants, have become the terrain for political claims over the redistribution of resources and the control of state institutions.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140551998","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}
What happens after border externalization? States and regional organizations of the Global North increasingly engage in transnational migration management that seeks to prevent potential irregular migration beyond their territory. Despite the impressive financial and political resources the involved actors mobilize to reach this goal, little is known about the effects of this strategy on their target states and populations. This paper conceptualizes border externalization as a spatial intervention that absorbs contingent migrant flows into an interplay of capital and race. It argues that the immobilization and differential integration produced through externalization can serve as a spatial fix for labor shortages in transit “migration” states. This differential integration disempowers the targeted migrant population and aggravates racial antagonisms. Hence, border externalization is not just a (by-)product of racist ideology and policy, but also intensifies racial hierarchies in the space it intervenes into. The paper studies this through the case of the “EU-Turkey Deal” and Turkey’s Syrian refugee population, building on document analysis and primary interview data with industry representatives, farmers, NGO workers, and government officials. On a theoretical level, the paper thereby contributes to the recent trend that reinserts the border into global processes of racialized capital accumulation.
{"title":"The Transit Fix—Border Externalization and the Interplay of Capital and Race in the Transit “Migration” State","authors":"Timor Landherr","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqae068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae068","url":null,"abstract":"What happens after border externalization? States and regional organizations of the Global North increasingly engage in transnational migration management that seeks to prevent potential irregular migration beyond their territory. Despite the impressive financial and political resources the involved actors mobilize to reach this goal, little is known about the effects of this strategy on their target states and populations. This paper conceptualizes border externalization as a spatial intervention that absorbs contingent migrant flows into an interplay of capital and race. It argues that the immobilization and differential integration produced through externalization can serve as a spatial fix for labor shortages in transit “migration” states. This differential integration disempowers the targeted migrant population and aggravates racial antagonisms. Hence, border externalization is not just a (by-)product of racist ideology and policy, but also intensifies racial hierarchies in the space it intervenes into. The paper studies this through the case of the “EU-Turkey Deal” and Turkey’s Syrian refugee population, building on document analysis and primary interview data with industry representatives, farmers, NGO workers, and government officials. On a theoretical level, the paper thereby contributes to the recent trend that reinserts the border into global processes of racialized capital accumulation.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140552004","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：