North American first peoples: slipping up into market citizenship?

This article explores the nature of Aboriginal demands for a citizenship regime grounded in a substantive recognition of cultural difference and inherent rights in Mexico and Canada. It provides an overview of the different evolution of Aboriginal citizenship in each country but focuses on two recent development projects, the Puebla Panama Plan in Mexico and the Mackenzie Valley pipeline in Canada. These cases demonstrate the ways in which neo‐liberal globalism is reshaping the substantive recognition of Aboriginal cultural difference and inherent rights. While contemporary neo‐liberal rhetoric recognizes cultural difference, the models of development employed effectively separate territory from the ideas of self‐government, culture and identity. The article concludes that the neo‐liberal turn in the construction of Aboriginal citizenship undercuts potentially much richer conceptions of Indigenous citizenship offered by the First Peoples of North America.     

Corporate citizenship and social responsibility in a globalized world

This article addresses the rise of corporate citizenship in the context of the changes in the nature of individual citizenship and the emergence of new, non‐territorial forms of national identity that are occurring in the current era of intensifying globalization. It also ponders the power of corporate citizens and the role they play in the prevailing global governance framework, as well as the extent to which they can behave responsibly and pursue sustainable development goals. More generally, the article discusses the limits to corporate social responsibility and the extent to which capitalism can be ‘caring’. The argument advanced is that, by virtue of their very nature, transnational corporations (TNCs) cannot become fully responsible and accountable citizens. Nonetheless, they can be induced to transform themselves in ways that may be compatible with socially and environmentally desirable objectives. Lastly, the article explores paths for action and, in particular, the potential of NGOs and anti‐globalization social movements to become civil regulators able to push for the introduction of binding rules and regulations and the construction a governance framework capable of restraining and harnessing the power of TNCs.     

Is the allocation of voting power among EU states fair?

It has often been claimed that the current allocation of votes among EU states is not fair. In this paper we verify this assertion by carrying out an evaluation of the distribution of power among the member states. The results show that the current distribution of votes for the qualified majority does not lead to a fair distribution of power whatever definition of the EU is considered. It can not be claimed however that the current voting process has a systematic bias in favor of certain states. We also present a simple method to derive voting weights which lead to a fair allocation of power.     

On the Nature of Tolerance: Dichotomous or Continuous?*

The purpose of this article is to reconsider the claim made recently by Mondak and Sanders that political tolerance ought to be thought to be a dichotomous rather than continuous variable. Using data from both Russia and the United States, I demonstrate that those Mondak and Sanders regard as uniquely tolerant are most likely no more than people who were given insufficient opportunity to express their intolerance. Even if such a phenomenon of “absolute tolerance” exists (all ideas expressed in all ways are to be tolerated), it is sufficiently rare that few practical implications are indicated for those doing empirical work on political tolerance and intolerance. * I appreciate the valuable comments of Jeffcry Mondak on an earlier version of this paper.     

Economic Threats or Societal Turmoil? Understanding Preferences for Authoritarian Political Systems

Why do some individuals prefer to be governed in an authoritarian political system? One intuitive answer is that citizens prefer authoritarian rule when the economy and society are in turmoil. These are common explanations for democratic backsliding, and the emergence and success of authoritarian leaders in the twentieth century. Which of these explanations better explains preferences for authoritarian rule? Both types of threat coincide in small samples and high-profile cases, creating inferential problems. I address this by using three waves of World Values Survey data to look at individual-level preferences for different forms of authoritarian government. Using multiple macroeconomic and societal indicators, I find that economic threats, especially increasing income inequality, better explain preferences for authoritarian government. I conclude with implications for understanding the emergence of support for authoritarianism in fledgling democracies.     

Robert Tollison and operationalizing public choice

In this tribute to Robert Tollison, I will outline his contributions to the development of public choice. I focus on Tollison’s work on rent-seeking, the political economy of reform, and the rules level of analysis in sports economics. Throughout his career, Tollison brilliantly figured out ways to take insights from price theory and public choice theory and operationalize them using multiple methods of empirical analysis, including historical interpretation and statistical testing.