Economic Liberalisation,Changes in Governance Structure and Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka

The last four decades have seen considerable economic, political and cultural changes in Sri Lanka. Among the dominant themes and discourses of the period are economic liberalisation, changes in governance and the conflict between the government and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (portrayed as an ethnic conflict). The economic liberalisation policies of the centre-right government that came to power in 1977 opened up the country to foreign capital and relaxed emigration rules and import restrictions. This government also introduced changes to the Westminster-style democratic system by instituting a centralised governance structure headed by a directly elected executive president. These changes and their implementation imposed significant restrictions on human liberties and rights. These changes are considered as a context for the emergence of conflicts between various central governments and Tamil militants in the early 1980s. This topic has been relatively under-researched. The article attempts to grasp the complexities surrounding this topic on the basis of a review of relevant literature and the underlying meanings of the war, particularly in relation to the maintenance of patron-client relations and a globalising economy. In concluding, the article reiterates the importance of a peace process and political reforms related to national identity and allegiance to an inclusive nation.     

“Mtwara will be the New Dubai”: dashed expectations,grievances, and civil unrest in Tanzania

When does inequality lead to conflict? Despite recent studies highlighting the effects of group exclusion, this question has not been fully answered. We argue that objective group inequality is not sufficient to fuel unrest. Structural inequalities need to be perceived as unfair, and become grievances, in order to spark mobilization. While most conflict scholars recognize this on a theoretical level, statistical tests of the effect of inequality on conflict almost exclusively rely on objective data. This limits their ability to distinguish when inequality is politically relevant and when it is not. Southern Tanzania is a case in point. Despite decades of marginalization, the population remained peaceful until natural gas was discovered, and the government was perceived to break their promises of local development. Demonstrating that objective regional inequalities have remained relatively constant, while group grievances seems to have increased, we argue that direct measures of grievances are needed to pinpoint when inequality becomes politically salient. Using novel survey data, we find that people who think that the region is treated unfairly have the highest likelihood of supporting and participating in civil unrest.     

The accountability function of the courts in Tanzania and Zambia

This comparative analysis of the judiciaries in Tanzania and Zambia finds that neither one has developed a strong accountability function vis-à-vis the government. It goes on to address why judges in the two countries rarely have restrained the government in politically significant cases, identifying three sets of factors that may explain why the judges perform as they do: the legal culture; the institutional structure; and the social legitimacy of the courts. The study concludes that there are signs in the Tanzanian judiciary of a certain willingness to hold the government accountable in politically salient cases, but that their opportunity to do so is limited, due to institutional, social and political factors restricting the flow of constitutional cases. The Zambian courts have more political cases and opportunities for fulfilling an accountability function vis-à-vis the executive, but are reluctant to assert such authority. This is attributed to the legal culture and to political pressure.     

Advancing Public Policy for High‐Growth,Female, and Social Entrepreneurs

Findings from a large and growing body of entrepreneurship research offer insights for public policy and public officials and managers. Entrepreneurship policy is defined as measures undertaken to stimulate entrepreneurship in a region or country. The authors discuss generalizations from empirical research on three types of entrepreneurship activity that are vital for inclusive, sustainable economic growth: high‐growth (stressing economic impact), female (inclusive impact), and social (sustainable impact) entrepreneurship. High‐growth firms make up a small share of all entrepreneurial activity but create the majority of economic growth. Compared to their male counterparts, female entrepreneurs are fewer in number (one‐third of all entrepreneurs) and tend to start ventures with lower financial capital and growth expectations. Social entrepreneurs generally have high levels of education and pursue social objectives, often remedying market failures with innovative solutions. For each entrepreneurship type, the authors provide a definition, empirical generalizations, and implications for public policy.     

Introduction: the accountability function of the courts in new democracies

Much of the literature on ‘democratic consolidation’ has adopted a forward‐looking, future‐oriented perspective. Rather than studying past regimes, it tries to assess the life expectancies of contemporary ’third wave’ democracies. The article contends that authors have usually been unaware of the methodological complexities this choice of time perspective involves. If we want to reach reasonable judgements about the chances of democratic survival in a given country we have to be conscious of the probabilistic nature of such a prospective exercise. And we have to make (and justify) some basic analytical decisions. We have to explain the time horizons we are adopting as well as the future conditions we are assuming. We have to make clear how we construct the binary opposition between ‘consolidated’ and ‘non‐consolidated’ democracies. We have to decide whose expectations of democratic stability we take into account. And we have to cope with conflicting and unstable perceptions. Unless we ‘consolidologists’ heed these methodological ground rules, it is unlikely that we will ever reach shared judgements, or else, intelligible disagreements, about empirical states of democratic consolidation.