In Defence of Associative Political Obligations: Part Two

This article continues the defence of associative political obligations begun in Part One. It does so by sketching an argument that supports commonplace ideas about our having a special, ethical relationship with the polity of which we are members. The argument begins by showing how non-voluntary groups in general can have value, and then seeks to identify the generic good of a polity: that good is the provision of order and security. While this is a necessary condition of associative political obligations, it is not sufficient. It needs to be supplemented by an argument explaining why we have obligations to the particular polity of which we are members. This 'associative' argument has two sides to it. The first explains how membership of a polity is for most people something like an ascribed status; that is, an identity or role that a person is taken to occupy without having chosen it. The second suggests how, through a process of identification, we incorporate membership within our self-understanding. The article concludes with some brief remarks about anarchism and why political obligation matters.     

In Defence of Associative Political Obligations: Part One

Part One of this article seeks to defend the idea of associative political obligations against a number of criticisms that have been advanced opposing it. The purpose of this defence is not to demonstrate that the associative account is therefore the best explanation of political obligations, but only that the principal reasons which have been given for rejecting it are much less compelling than its critics maintain. The argument focuses in particular on the various criticisms advanced by A. John Simmons. Two general lines of defence figure especially prominently. First, it is shown how many of the criticisms in one way or another ultimately rest on the assumption that political obligations must be voluntarily acquired, when it is just this assumption that is contested by an associative account. Secondly, it rebuts the charge that the idea of associative obligations faces a particular problem because it entails the view that members must have obligations to associations or groups that are evil. While it is not claimed that the idea of associative political obligations is entirely without difficulties, it is contended that stories of its demise are greatly exaggerated, and in this respect the ground is laid for Part Two of the article, which sketches a particular account of associative political obligations.     

Two Cheers for Interpretivism: Deconstructing the British Political Tradition

This article engages with Bevir and Rhodes' version of interpretivism from a critical realist perspective. It argues that they are misguided to equate path‐dependency with path‐determinancy. Instead, we argue that there are three path‐dependencies, institutional, discursive and political‐economic, which constrain without determining the actions of agents and thus effect political outcomes. The argument is illustrated through a brief consideration of the operation of the British Political Tradition.     

The Two Schools of American Political Development

Political scientists working in the area of American political development (APD) focus on America's political history with the goal of explaining why the nation's often peculiar collection of institutions and policies grew the way they did. Two primary approaches or schools of inquiry shape much APD scholarship, though a great deal of very fine work falls outside of them: historical institutionalists study actors pursuing interests through a political arena bounded by institutions; and ideational scholars, in contrast, seek to understand how norms, narratives, and outlooks influence the framing of debates and their outcomes. Although there are exceptions, especially at the margins, each school is marked by a general outlook. Previous discussions of the two schools have focused on the place of culture and ideas in relation to institutions. I argue here that the two schools split along more fundamental lines, and suggest that the crucial distinction between them centers on the nature of causation and on an often-unstated understanding of what political development is. By mapping out the theoretical underpinnings of each, APD's methods can be introduced to researchers outside the subfield. And the question of how the two schools might be drawn together for even more powerful inquiry can be posed.     

Two Diasporas: Overseas Chinese and Non-resident Indians in Their Homelands’ Political Economy

This paper, through a comparative study of the roles Chinese and Indian diasporas in the United States play in the political economy of their respective homelands, explores the relationship between the diaspora and homeland development and how this dynamic relationship contributes to economic growth and foreign relations of the homelands. The author argues that the roles of Indian and Chinese diasporas in their respective homelands’ development consistently reflect, and are heavily influenced by, their homelands’ economic development strategies as well as political history and culture. The author also argues that the impact of the diaspora on the foreign relations of their homelands is conditional upon the state of bilateral relations between their homeland and the country of residence. This study raises issues for future research, such as the relationship between the diaspora and regime type of the homeland. The author concludes by suggesting that since activities of overseas Chinese and non-resident Indians provide a unique perspective in the comparative study of Chinese and Indian political economy, the two diasporas warrant more scholarly and policy attention. Zhiqun Zhu, Ph.D. is currently Assistant Professor and Chair of International Political Economy and Diplomacy at the University of Bridgeport, Connecticut. He is the author of US-China Relations in the 21 ^st Century: Power Transition and Peace (Routledge, 2006). His research and teaching interests include international political economy, East Asian politics, and US-China relations. He wishes to thank panelists at the 102^nd annual conference of the American Political Science Association in Philadelphia for their helpful comments. He also wants to acknowledge Dr. Dave Benjamin’s useful suggestions and editorial assistance.     

Political influence on historical ESA listings by state: a count data analysis

We use count data analysis to examine the influence that a state’s congressional subcommittee representation (with oversight of the US Fish and Wildlife Service) has on the number of species that are added to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) list in each state each year (1973–2004). Explanatory variables include: (1) ecological—species type, NatureServe’s “at-risk” assessment, federal land area, rainfall, and coastal location; (2) demographic—population density, hunting/fishing participation, and farming area; (3) political—League of Conservation Voters’ environmental scores and party affiliation. “Pro-environment” (“pro-development”) representatives appear to have increased (reduced) ESA listings in their states.