Gurus, Theory, and Practice: A Reply to Catlaw and Chapman

In this reply to Catlaw and Chapman's commentary, Dr. Page acknowledges that attention to New Public Management theory is all well and good, but it should not come at the expense of field observation of the associated phenomena.     

Parties, Democracy and Grounded Utopias: A Reply to Sara Motta

The article is a reply to Sara Motta's article 'Utopias Re-imagined: A Reply to Panizza' in this journal. It discusses the relations between representative and participatory democracy in Latin America in the light of Motta's vindication of different forms of participatory democracy. It argues that when analysing the advances of the left and the centre-left in contemporary Latin America it is difficult to ignore the strategic role played by left-of-centre political parties in winning elections and the importance of controlling the state as a crucial instrument for promoting change. It further argues that while participatory democracy is essential for a democratic polity, it presupposes a well-functioning representative democracy rather than an alternative to it. Against Motta's celebration of localised, anti-capitalist utopias the article vindicates a process of iterative yet cumulative change that shapes and reshapes the political and institutional parameters that redefine what governments consider politically possible, feasible and desirable. It concludes by noting that the twentieth century's failure of totalising utopias makes us overlook the success of other, more grounded and open forms of utopian thinking, such as political democracy and economic social democracy, which have the potential to improve the lives of millions of people in Latin America.     

Give Us Your Tired, Your Poor, ... But Make Sure They Have a Green Card: The Effects of Documented and Undocumented Migrant Context on Anglo Opinion Toward Immigration

Although few controversies in our political environment are as contentious as the current debate over immigration policy, the research on public opinion toward immigration is quite limited. In particular, we know relatively little about the contextual determinants of opinions on immigration issues. We address this issue by investigating the impact of migrant context on Anglo opinions toward immigration. We find that Anglo support for increased immigration is directly related to the size of the documented migrant population. Conversely, as the relative size of the undocumented migrant population increases, Anglo support for increased immigration decreases. We conclude with a discussion of the relevance of our findings for the study of immigration opinion, in particular, and the study of intergroup relations more generally.     

Utopias Re-imagined: A Reply to Panizza

This article is a reply to Panizza's recent article, 'Unarmed Utopia Revisited: The Resurgence of Left-of-Centre Politics in Latin America'. It contests the claims that there are no alternatives to market economies and liberal democracy in contemporary Latin America. It does this by disentangling the conceptual assumptions that underlie the analysis presented, which, it argues, construct a loaded dice that makes the conclusions of the arguments seemingly inevitable and objective. It also explores the internal contradictions within the alternative presented. This analysis is developed through the use of critical social theory and with reference to the 'movements from below' engaged in the struggle to re-imagine and reconstruct utopias. This involves bringing to the heart of analysis a theoretical orientation in which structures become a series of concrete social relations, not objects, and power is mediated at a variety of spatial levels. It necessitates a conceptualisation of politics, structure and the agents and nature of structural change that expand the boundaries of traditional political science categories. Such conceptual expansion and theoretical repositioning make visible, and politically central, the movements from below normally categorised as marginal in political analysis.     

Epistemic Communities: A Reply to Toke

This article contests the understanding of Peter M. Haas's 'epistemic communities' approach, forwarded by David Toke in his article in Politics of May 1999. It is argued that while Toke diagnoses the approach's failing correctly, the cause he identifies is off the mark. This particularly concerns his assertion of a positivist dogma underscoring the thesis, which is rejected as a misinterpretation of Haas. Rather, it is contended that the framework's inability to engage with the real world of politics, and the other groups therein, is a product of its lack of theoretical refinement and rigorous empirical examination.     

Political Scepticism: A Reply to the Critics

In a previous article in this journal ( Bufacchi, 2001 ) I argued that political scepticism is a defining characteristic of liberal democracy. I have been criticised for inadequately distinguishing political scepticism from fallibilism (Festenstein, 2001) and for failing to appreciate the role of moral autonomy within liberal democracy (Hyland, this issue). In this article I respond to my critics, first by clarifying the difference between political scepticism and fallibilism, and secondly by suggesting that political scepticism is a necessary condition for moral autonomy.     

Case Studies and EU Politics: A Reply to Miklin

A recent article in West European Politics by Eric Miklin attempted to shed light on the decision-making process in the European Union. The argument presented was that individual ministerial ideological preferences can affect a government's bargaining position in the Council of the European Union. Miklin proposes that under certain conditions national ministers may enjoy substantial freedom. This brief reply identifies three main problems with Miklin's approach: a case selection bias, ministerial autonomy, and an examination of where decisions are made.