Why do presidents fail? Political leadership and the Argentine crisis (1999–2001)

This article explores why Argentine president Fernando de la Rúa (1999–2001) failed to govern and the factors that prevented him from compelting his constitutional mandate. This study draw on current literature about leadership. We argue that President De la Rúa’s ineffective performance was characteristic of an inflexible tendency towards unilateralism, isolationism, and an inability to compromise and persuade. Moreover, we examine how de la Rúas performance, in the context of severe political and economic constraints, discouraged cooperative practices among political actors, led to decision-making paralysis, and ultimately to a crisis of governance This work seeks to make four contributions. First, it conceptualizes political leadership by providing an analytical framework that integrates individual action, institutional resources and constraints, and policy context, thus filling a gap in the literature. Second, it explains the importance of effective leadership in building up and maintaining multiparty coalitions in presidential systems. Third, it complements existing institutional approaches to improve our understanding of a new type of instability in Latin America: the failure of more than a dozen of presidents to complete their constitutional mandates. Fourth, it analyzes the way political and economic variables interact in times of crisis. Mariana Llanos is a researcher at the Institut für Iberoamerika-Kunde (IIK) in Hamburg, Germany, and teaches Latin American politics at the University of Hamburg. Her research focuses on Latin American political institutions particularly to the president-congress relations and the legislatures of the Southern Cone. She is the author ofPrivatization and Democracy in Argentina (Palgrave, 2002), co-author ofBicameralismo, Senados y senadores en el Cono Sur latinoamericano (ICPS, Barcelona, 2005, together with Francisco Sánchez and Detlef Nolte) and co-editor ofControle Parlamentar na Alemanha, na Argentina e no Brasil (KAS, Rio de Janeiro, 2005, with Ana María Mustapic), among other works. Ana Margheritis is assistant professor of international relations and Latin American politics at University of Florida. Her research interests are in international political economy, foreign policy, regional cooperation, and inter-American relations. She is the editor ofLatin American Democracies in the New Global Economy (2003); author ofAjuste y Reforma en Argentina, 1989–1995 (1999); and co-author ofHistoria de las relaciones exteriores de la República Argentina (with Carlos Escudé et al., 1998) andMalvinas: Los motivos económicos de un conflicto (with Laura Tedesco, 1991), as well as of several articles in academic journals and book chapters. The authors are grateful to Vicente Palermo and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.     

Industrial convergence,globalization, and the persistence of the North-South divide

This article demonstrates empirically that widespread convergence in the degree of industrialization between former First and Third World countries over the past four decades hasnot been associated with convergence in the levels of income enjoyed on average by the residents of these two groups of countries. Our findings contradict the widely made claim that the significance of the North-South divide is diminishing. This contention is based on a false identification of “industrialization” with “development” and “industrialized” with “wealthy”. Elaborating from elements of Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of innovation, Raymond Vernon’s product cycle model, and Pierre Bourdieu’s concept ofillusio, the article offers an explanation for the persistence of the North-South income divide, despite rapid Third World industrialization and despite dramatic changes in the world political-ideological context for development (that is, the shift around 1980 from the “development” project to the “globalization” project or “Washington Consensus”). While emphasizing the long-term stability of the Northern-dominated hierarchy of wealth, the article concludes by pointing to several contemporary processes that may destabilize not only the “globalization project”, but also the global hierarchy of wealth that has characterized historical capitalism. Giovanni Arrighi is professor of sociology at The Johns Hopkins University. His latest books areThe Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power and the Origins of Our Times (1994) and (with Beverly J. Silver et al.)Chaos and Governance in the Modern World System (1999). Beverly J. Silver is professor of sociology at The Johns Hopkins University. She is the author ofForces of Labor: Workers’ Movements and Globalization Since 1870 (2003) and co-author (with Giovanni Arrighi et al.) ofChaos and Governance in the Modern World System (1999). Benjamin D. Brewer is a graduate student in the Department of Sociology at The Johns Hopkins University. His dissertation is a commodity chains analysis of the professional-sport economy. He has also published articles on sport and globalization. Previous versions of this paper were presented at the American Sociological Association Meeting, Anaheim, August 2001; Lingnan University, Hong Kong, May 2001; the Graduate School, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, May 2001; the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Chicago, February 2001; the Center for International Studies, University of Southern California, November 2000; the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington D.C., September 2000; the Universidad Nacional Pedro Henriquez Urena, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, March 2000; and at the Conference on Ethics and Globalization, Yale University, April 2000. We benefited greatly from the comments of Hayward Alker, Charles Beitz, Peter Evans, Walter Goldfrank, Michael Mann, David Smith, Ann Tickner, and two anonymous reviewers forSCID.     

Institutions and Economic Performance: The Use and Abuse of Culture in New Institutional Economics

Important research programs within New Institutional Economics advance culturalist arguments to explain failures of economic development. Focusing on the work of Douglass C. North and Avner Greif, this article argues that such arguments rely on an essentialist conception of culture that is both historically inaccurate and analytically misleading. Greif’s work in particular rests on a selective use of empirical data that ultimately distorts the deductive models that are at the core of his work. As a result, both scholars use culture to account for outcomes that are more adequately explained as the product of social conflict and political struggles—struggles in which culture plays a far more contingent and destabilizing role than the one they attribute to it. What is needed, I argue, is to link arguments about the persistence of inefficient institutions with a sociologically informed conception of culture as an ensemble of resources that enhance rather than constrain the scope of individual agency. To come to terms with the effects of culture on institutional formation and change it is necessary to replace the essentialism articulated by North and Greif with a strategic-instrumentalist view in which culture is compatible with a wide spectrum of economic behaviors, individual actions, and thus institutional trajectories.

Book Reviews

Caring and Coping: A Guide to Social Services. By Anthony Douglas and Terry Philpot. Routledge, 1998. Pp.259. £14.99 pb.

The Personal Social Services: Clients, Consumers or Citizens? By Robert Adams. Longman, 1996. Pp.290. £13.99 pb.

Social Services: Working Under Pressure. Edited by Susan Balloch, John McLean and Mike Fisher (eds.). The Policy Press, 1999. Pp.216. £45 hb; £16.99 pb.

Managing State Social Work: Front‐line Management and the Labour Process Perspective. By John Harris. Ashgate, 1998. Pp.152. £32.50 hb.

Health Policy in Britain. By Christopher Ham. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 4th edn 1999. Pp.237. £16.99 pb.

Community Care: Policy and Practice. By Robin Means and Randall Smith. Macmillan, 2nd edn, 1998. Pp.285. £13.99 pb.

Community Care, Ideology and Social Policy. By Harry Cowen. Prentice Hall Europe, 1999. Pp.246. £13.95 pb.

Children and Social Welfare in Europe. By Keith Pringle. Open University Press, 1998. Pp.218. £45 hb; £14.99 pb.

The Politics of Old Age in Europe. Edited by Alan Walker and Gerhard Naegele. Open University Press, 1999. Pp.230. £50 hb; £16.99 pb.

Developments in European Social Policy: Convergence and Diversity. Edited by Rob Sykes and Pete Alcock. The Policy Press, 1988. Pp.318. £18.99 pb.     

Overcoming the past: De-communization and reconstruction of post-communist societies

In several of the central and eastern European nations, the fall of Communism has initiated a new round of political intolerance that threatens to destroy the foundations of their fragile democratic regimes. Campaigns of lustration (political “cleansing”) have imposed ideological tests for employment and political participation in the Balkan countries and in parts of the former Soviet Union. The small, poor nation of Albania has been especially seriously impacted by this atmosphere of vengeacean against ex-Communists and their families. Justified by the principles of destructive entitlement—reminiscent of ancient cultural rituals of blood retribution—journalists have been arrested, members of the opposition have been imprisoned, and University programs have been suspended. In response to Albania’s plight, and to a similar pattern of civil rights abuses in neighboring countries, social scientists have begun to analyze the powerful role played by the “past-in-the-present” in current reconstruction efforts. As Jurgen Habermas, Adam Michnik, Seymour Martins Lipset, and others have noted, a new “culture of forgiveness” may well be a necessary condition for the development of stable and authentic democratic societies in the region. Fatos Tarifa is currently at the Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Tirana in 1985. He is director of the New Sociological Research Center (NSRC) in Tirana, Albania, and is the author of several books and journal articles, including a 1991 bookIn Search of the Sociological Fact (published in Albanian). Jay Weinstein is a professor of sociology at Eastern Michigan University. He has travelled widely in the Third World and in Central and Eastern Europe. Author of numerous books, journal articles, and chapters, he is currently working on a volume entitledSocial and Cultural Change: Social Science for a Dynamic World (forthcoming in 1997 by Allyn & Bacon Publishers).     

Two conceptual approaches to Latin American social movements from the perspective of activists and scholars: A review essay

Steve Ellner is the director of the Center for Administrative and Economic Research of the Universidad de Oriente, Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela. He is the author ofOrganized Labor in Venezuela, 1958–1991: Behavior and Concerns in a Democratic Setting (Scholarly Resources) and coeditor ofThe Latin American Left: From the Fall of Allende to Perestroika (Westview Press), both published in 1993.     

The Cost of Discrimination in Latin America

Indigenous and linguistic minorities are in an inferior economic and social position. The ethnic concentration of inequality is increasingly being recognized in the literature. In this review, studies from six Latin American countries that estimate the costs to an individual of being an economic minority are reviewed. The studies decompose the overall earnings gap into two components. One is the portion attributable to differences in the endowments of income-generating characteristics (“explained” differences) and the other is attributable to differences in the returns that majority and minority workers receive for the same endowment of income-generating characteristics (“unexplained”). This latter component is often taken as reflecting the “upper bound” of wage discrimination. In two studies for Bolivia, one using a 1966 survey and the other a 1989 survey, decomposition of the differential between indigenous and nonindigenous earnings leads to the conclusion that most of the overall differential is due to productivity. In Guatemala, Mexico and Peru, only one-half of the earnings differential can be attributed to differences in productivity-enhancing characteristics. In Paraguay, decomposition of the overall earnings differential between monolingual Spanish speakers and Guaraní speakers shows that most of the differential is explained by human capital differences. In Brazil, however, there is a significant cost to “being non-white.” Harry Anthony Patrinos is a Senior Education Economist at the World Bank. He leads the Economics of Education Thematic Group and manages EdInvest (www.worldbank.org/edinvest), the Education Investment Information Facility. He is co-author ofDecentralization of Education: Demand-Side Financing (1997). His latest co-edited book isPolicy Analysis of Child Labor: A Comparative Study (St. Martin's Press, 1999).Indigenous People and Poverty in Latin America: An Empirical Analysis (edited with George Psacharopoulos), was one of the first studies of the socioeconomic situation of indigenous peoples in Latin America.     

The New Commons vs. The Second Enclosure Movement: Comments on an Emerging Agenda for Development Research

The relationship between property rights and development has always been a central concern for both theorists and policy makers. The growing role of information and communications technology in the economies of both North and South intensifies the salience of this issue. This commentary extends the discussion of the two visions of property rights that are introduced by Weber and Bussell (2005). In one, property rights are restructured along the lines pioneered by the open-source software community to create a “new commons” of productive tools; in the other, Northern corporations successfully defend their politically protected monopoly rights over intangible assets and even extend them through a “second enclosure movement” to an ever larger set of ideas, information, and images. Currently, the second enclosure movement remains dominant, but which of these visions is likely to predominate in the longer run depends on the interests and potential power of key actors and on the possibilities for alliances among them—not just Northern corporations, but Southern states and private entrepreneurs, as well. Peter Evans is professor of sociology and Marjorie Meyer Eliaser Chair of International Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. His research has focused on the comparative political economy of developing countries, particularly industrialization and the role of the state, as exemplified byEmbedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995). He has also worked urban environmental issues, producing the edited volumeLivable Cities: Urban Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability (University of California Press, 2002). His current interest in the politics of globalization is reflected in his chapter, “Counter-hegemonic Globalization: Transnational Social Movements in the Contemporary Global Political Economy,” forthcoming in theHandbook of Political Sociology (Cambridge University Press).     

Modelling peruvian debt rescheduling in the 1980s

International debt rescheduling has continued to be a crucial issue in the international political economy. This article develops a political-economic model to examine debt rescheduling between private banks and debtors. The model provides a means of developing bargaining games by allowing the analyst to deduce game payoffs based on actors' “individual situations” as defined by their overall capabilities, their debt-specific resources, and their coalitional stability. Based on these games, it predicts the likely bargaining outcomes in terms of the degree to which banks will make lending concessions and the degree to which debtors will agree to adjust their economies. The model is operationalized based on written sources and interviews and then applied to four periods of rescheduling between the banks and Peru from 1982 to 1990. It proves successful in predicting bargaining outcomes in these cases, and we argue that it should prove helpful in investigating other debt bargaining episodes. Vinod K. Aggarwal is associate professor of political science and affiliated professor in the Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author ofLiberal Protectionism: The International Politics of Organized Textile Trade (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press),International Debt Threat (Berkeley: Institute for International Studies), and articles on the politics of trade and finance. His forthcoming book is entitledDebt Games: Strategic Interaction in International Debt Rescheduling Maxwell A. Cameron is assistant professor at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University. He is the author ofDemocracy and Authoritarianism in Peru: Political Coalitions and Social Change (New York: St. Martin's Press, forthcoming), as well as a number of articles on Peruvian politics. He recently coeditedThe Political Economy of North American Free Trade (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993) with Ricardo Grinspun.     

Postcommunist divergence: A comparative analysis of the transition to capitalism in Poland and Russia

This article critiques the dominant neoliberal transition paradigm. The implementation of neoliberal reforms in the postcommunist world has fostered the creation of two different types of capitalism. Rather than enabling a transition to Western European-style capitalism, these reforms have produced divergence within the postcommunist world. This article uses comparative firm-level case studies from Russia and Poland to construct a “neoclassical” sociological alternative to neoliberal theory that can explain this divergence. In this account, intra-dominant class structure (the pattern of alliances between the Party bureaucracy, the technocracy, and humanistic intellectuals) at the time of the transition produces different “paths to capitalism,” or policy regimes, which, in turn, have different effects on the ability of firms to restructure. In Russia, this creates a system of “patrimonial capitalism” that will produce long-term economic stagnation. In Poland, a variety of modern rational capitalism emerges. This latter system is distinguished by its very high levels of dependence on capital imports in comparison to the advanced capitalist countries. As a result, this type of economy will be quite vulnerable to economic shocks. Lawrence King is an assistant professor of sociology at Yale University. His book includeThe Basic Features of Postcommunist Capitalism in Eastern Europe (2001) andAssessing New Class Theory (with Ivan Szelenyi, forthcoming). He is currently working on a book entitledPostcommunist Capitalisms. I am grateful for a Yale Junior Faculty Research Fellowship, and the support of the Yale Center for Comparative Research, the Social Science Research Fund at Yale, and the Yale Center for International and Area Studies. I would also like to thank Aleksandra Sznajder and Evgenia Gvozdeva for their invaluable research assistance, and Ivan Szelenyi, Andrew Schrank, Hannah Brueckner, Alison Pollet, and the editors and anonymous reviewers atStudies in Comparative International Development for their comments and suggestions.     

Social causation and interpretive processes: Herbert Blumer's theory of industrialization and social change

Herbert Blumer.Industrialization as an Agent of Social Change: A Critical Analysis. Edited with an Introduction by David R. Maines and Thomas J. Morrione, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990.     

Cultural and economic prerequisites of democracy: Reassessing recent evidence

The purpose of this article is to reassess two influential theories of democratic development: the theory of democratic culture and the theory of economic development. The leading predecessors in each domain—Ronald Inglehart and Adam Przeworski—are the prime targets of analysis. We take issue with recent evidence presented by these authors on three grounds: the evidence (1) confuses “basic” criteria of democracy with possible “quality” criteria (Inglehart); (2) conceptualizes democracy in dichotomous rather than continuous terms (Przeworski); and (3) fails to account for endogeneity and contingent effects (Inglehart). In correcting for these shortcomings, we present striking results. In the case of democratic culture, the theory lacks support; neither overt support for democracy nor “self-expression values” affect democratic development. In the case of economic development, earlier findings must be refined. Although the largest impact of modernization is found among more democratized countries, we also find an effect among “semi-democracies.” Axel Hadenius is professor of political science at Uppsala University in Sweden. He is the author ofDemocracy and Development (Cambridge University Press, 1992) andInstitutions and Democratic Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2001). Jan Teorell is associated professor of political science at Uppsala University. His articles on intra-party democracy, social capital, and political participation appear in international journals.     

Multi-party elections in the Arab world: Institutional engineering and oppositional strategies

Recent moves toward multi-party competition for elected legislatures in numerous Arab countries constitute a significant departure from earlier practices there, and create the basis for democratic activists to gradually chip away at persistent authoritarian rule. This article explores the institutional mechanisms by which incumbent authoritarian executives seek to engineer these elections. It documents examples of rulers changing electoral systems to ensure compliant legislatures, and demonstrates the prevalent use of winner-takes-all electoral systems, which generally work to the regimes’ advantage. I then review various strategies of opposition forces—boycotts, non-competition agreements, election monitoring, and struggles over election rules—and the dilemmas that these entail. Surmounting differences in terms of ideologies, as well as short-term political goals and prospects, is a central challenge. The future should see greater electoral participation among opposition activists, along with cleaner elections. As vote coercion and ballot box stuffing is restricted by opposition pressures, electoral institutions will take on greater importance, and struggles for proportional representation are likely to increase. Marsha Pripstein Posusney is associate professor of Political Science at Bryant College and an adjunct associate professor of International Relations (Research) at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. Her first book,Labor and the State in Egypt: Workers, Unions, and Economic Restructuring (Co-lumbia University Press, 1997) was co-winner of the 1998 Albert Hourani prize, awarded annually by the Middle East Studies Association for outstanding original scholarly work on the Middle East. She is currently completing work on a co-edited volume,Privatization and Labor: Responses and Consequences in Global Perspective (Edward Elgar Publishing, Forthcoming). Earlier versions of this article were presented at Middle East Studies seminars at Harvard and columbia Universities in April, 1998, and at a Brown University Political Science Dept. seminar in April, 1999. In addition to the feedback at these events, I would like to acknowledge helpful comments on earlier versions from Miguel Glatzer, Iliya Harik, John Kerr, Ann Lesch, Vickie Langohr, Rob Richie, Wendy Schiller, Jillian Schwedler, Joe Stork, Greg White, and especially Ellen Lust-Okar and four anonymous reviewers. I am also grateful for the research assistance of Myrna Atalla, Daria Viviano, Laurent Fauque, and Colleen Anderson. The article draws on presentations and discussion at the conference on “Controlled Contestation and Opposition Strategies: Multi-Party Elections in the Arab World”, Brown University, October 2–3, 1998. Sponsored by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown in cooperation with the Center for Middle Eastern Studies as Harvard, it brought together ten democratic activists from seven different Arab countries. It is referenced here (to save space) as the “Brown elections conference.”     

Taxation and representation

Social scientists have drawn a straightforward lesson from European history: taxation promotes representation. Drawing on this history, scholars have developed general theories that connect taxation to modern democracy. In this article I argue that these theories have overlooked the most important element in the relationship between taxation and representation in European history. Premodern assemblies, or their members, typically had a deep involvement in the mechanics of tax collection, and it was primarily through this that taxation promoted the emergence, strength, and longevity of representative institutions. But modern parliaments do not collect taxes. As a consequence, taxation has only a modest role in the promotion of democracy in the modern world. My argument challenges existing theories of the link between taxation and representation, including those made in the literature on rentier states. It also advances our understanding of the process by which premodern European representative assemblies were transformed into the basic institutions of modern democracy. Michael Herb is assistant professor of political science at Georgia State University. He is the author ofAll in the Family: Absolutism, Revolution and Democracy in the Middle Eastern Monarchies (Albany, NY: SUNY, 1999). He received his Ph.D. from UCLA in 1997.     

To return or not to return? Politics vs. economics in China's brain drain

This study, based on 273 face-to-face interviews with students, scholars, and former residents of China in the United States in 1993, uses both qualitative and quantitative methods to explain people's views about returning to China. Although less than 9 percent of interviewees had concrete plans to return, over 32 percent were positively disposed to returning in the future. Key background variables that affect that decision are people’s age, sex, social background in China, and their views about returning when they first left China. Concern about children’s future was not significant, but having a wife abroad greatly increased the desire to stay abroad. Why people chose not to return varied significantly between people with children and those who didn't. Even four years after the Tiananmen crackdown, concerns about political instability, lack of political freedom, and a lack of trust that the government would let people who returned leave again were significant reasons for not returning. But economic factors—better U.S. housing and incomes—as well as professional concerns about lack of job or career mobility in China and a poor work environment there were equally important. Given the weight attributed to economic factors and political stability, if China weathers Deng Xiaoping’s succession and the economy continues to grow, significant numbers of Chinese may return. David Zweig is Associate Professor, Division of Social Science, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He is the author ofFreeing China’s Farmers: Rural Restructuring in the Deng Era (forthcoming),Agrarian Radicalism in China, 1968–1981 (1989), co-author ofChina’s Brain Drain to the United States: The Views of Students and Scholars in the 1990s (1995), and co-editor ofChina’s Search for Democracy: The Student and Mass Movement of 1989 (1992) andNew Perspectives on China’s Cultural Revolution (1991). He writes about China’s rural political economy, transnational relations, and domestic politics. He is currently completing a book on the impact of China’s open policy and transnational relations on urban development, rural industry, universities, and recipients of foreign aid.     

From race to citizenship: The indigenization debate in post-socialist Tanzania

Neoliberal economic reforms in post-socialist Tanzania heightened racial as well as anti-foreign hostilities, while liberal political reforms made possible the expression of these antagonisms in electoral politics. Newly formed opposition parties mobilized popular support by advocating anti-Asian indigenization of minority rights. This prompted the ruling party, which had initially denounced advocates of indigenization as racist, to alter its position. In doing so, ruling party leaders redefined the meaning of indigenization, shifting the focus of the debate away from racial issues and Asian control of the economy toward issues of free trade, foreign investment, and foreign economic domination. By implementing indigenization measures targeting non-citizens and featuring anti-liberal economic policies, including tariff barriers, local content laws, and restrictions on property ownership, the government faced the danger of losing international support from foreign donors and international financial institutions. The trajectory of the indigenization debate reveals the role of electoral competition and party formation in shaping race relations and national identity in post-socialist Tanzania. It suggests the need for event-centered studies of the way in which political identities are constructed in processes of conflict within the institutional arenas created by liberal political reforms. Ronald Aminzade is professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. His publications concerning the social and political consequences of capitalist development includeBallots and Barricade: Class Formation and Republican Politics in France, 1830–1871 (Princeton University Press, 1993) andClass, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism: A Study of Mid-Nineteenth Century Toulouse, France (State University of New York Press, 1981). He is also co-editor ofSilence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2001) andThe Social Worlds of Higher Education (Pine Forge Press, 1999). For making this research possible I would like to thank the University of Minnesota and the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, which provided support through National Science Foundation Grant #SBR-9601236. I am grateful to James Brennan, Susan Geiger, Erik Larson, Mary Jo Maynes, Marjorie Mbilinyi, Jamie Monson, Richa Nagar, Anne Pitcher, Eric Sheppard, Thomas Spear, Charles Tilly, Eric Weitz, Erik Olin Wright, and several anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft.     

Traditional rulers and development administration: Chieftaincy in Niger,Nigeria, and Vanuatu

Although the paramountcy of chiefs was undone by colonial rule, traditional rulers have served as important adjuncts in the administration of post-colonial government in both Africa and Oceania. This paper examines the evolution of the chieftaincy, particularly as an agent of administration, in West Africa (Niger and Nigeria) and Melanesia (Vanuatu). Although French and British colonial regimes had distinctive policies regarding the use of “their” chiefs, post-colonial Nigérien, Nigerian, and ni-Vanuatu governments have all come to rely on traditional rulers to aid in development activities. The degree of autonomy retained by traditional rulers varies, however: it is highest in Vanuatu, lowest in Niger. Differing conceptions and uses of tradition and “custom” help explain these variations. Five modern functions of traditional rulers are identified as contributing to development administration: 1) linkage or “brokering” between grassroots and capital; 2) extension of national identity through the conferral of traditional titles; 3) low-level conflict resolution and judicial gate-keeping; 4) ombudsmanship; and 5) institutional safety-valve for overloaded and subapportioned bureaucracies. Creating educated chieftaincies significantly enhances the effectiveness of traditional rulers' contributions to development and administration. William F.S. Miles is chair of the Development Administration Concentration (Public Administration Program) and associate professor of political science at Northeastern University in Boston. Some of his recent articles have appeared inAfrican Studies Review, theAmerican Political Science Review, andComparative Politics. Professor Miles's two forthcoming books areImperial Burdens: Countercolonialism in Former French India (Lynne Rienner Publishers) andHausaland Divided: Colonialism and Independence in Nigeria and Niger (Cornell University Press). Please address correspondence     

Book Reviews

Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach The Ministry of Housing and Local Government Local Notables and the City Council Modern Capitalist Planning: The French Model Politics and Change in Developing countries: Studies in the Theory and Practice of Development Social Work in Scotland: Report of a Working Party, on the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 The Voluntary Worker in the Social Services Voluntary Work in the Welfare State