Power transition in Northeast Asia: U.S.-China security perceptions and the challenges of systemic adjustment and stability

This article argues that the rise of China and the changing North-east Asian balance of power are creating the classical adjustment problems of Great Power international relations historically associated with power transitions and that three types of misperceptions across five important issues in the Sino-American security relationship are interfering with the prospects of achieving the systemic adjustments required for long-term stability. Power transition and the rise of China are seen as potentially undermining stability in four ways: (1) by generating security dilemmas and arms races, (2) by contributing to increased incidence of conflicting security interests, (3) by aggravating South china Sea maritime disputes, and (4) by undermining Chinese domestic stability in a manner which potentially results in a hostile regime that adopts an aggressive foreign policy coming to power at some point in the future. Systemic adjustment is defined as the process by which major powers peacefully reconcile their opposing interests and is viewed as being an essential feature of stability over the long term. The article argues that three types of misperceptions concerning: (1) salient issues, (2) security interests, and (3) the influence of domestic politics on foreign policy are manifesting themselves in misunderstandings of five security issues that are impeding the systemic adjustment process. These five issues are: (1) the nature of post-cold war Sino-American security relations and international politics, (2) the role of democracy and U.S. human rights in foreign policy, (3) the significance of China’s South China Sea policy, (4) Middle East diplomacy and arms sales, and (5) nuclear weapons and arms control policy. The article concludes with a discussion of policy implications that stresses the importance of consultation and dialogue to reduce misperceptions.     

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     

Feminist forbears

Margaret Foster, Significant Sisters. The Grassroots of Active Feminism 1839–1939 (Penguin Books) Harmondsworth, 1986; David Rubinstein, Before the Suffragettes. Women's Emancipation in the 1890s (Harvester Press) Brighton, 1986.     

STATE LEGISLATORS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS AND THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN BIOTECHNOLOGY

This article presents a detailed examination of some key political dimen- sions underlying cooperative research in agricultural biotechnology among state land-grant universities, state legislatures, and biotechnology corpora- tions. Factor analysis and path analysis methods are employed to assess differences in the perceptions of university administrators, biotechnology corporation researchers, and state legislators, using national and state survey data. Two attitudinal dimensions, one regarding cooperation among university and corporate researchers, and the other regarding barriers to joint research, are extracted. Generally similar attitudes are shared by university and legislative respondents, who are concerned over the prospects of market-oriented university research. In contrast, corporate respondents are more concerned with reducing barriers to cooperative research and the need for more open communication between academia and industry, and with issues of patent rights. Extensions of this work to other states and to other high-technology industries are considered.