Civil society and democracy in the third world: Ambiguities and historical possibilities

The terminology of “civil society” has gained currency in recent discussions of democratic movements around the globe. Although less grandiose in its implications than claims about the “end of history,” this terminology does suggest a certain universality in human experience. We argue that this claim of universality is warranted, but also problematic. We establish the relevance of our argument in reference to the literatures in African and Indian studies. We note first that the common employments of the concept ignore the theoretical and historical specificity of civil society: civil society is used to label any group or movement opposed to the state, regardless of its intent or character, or used so generically that it is indistinguishable from the term “society.” Instead, we argue that civil society is a sphere of social life, involving a stabilization of a system of rights, constituting human beings as individuals, both as citizens in relation to the state and as legal persons in the economy and the sphere of private association. Thus, we link the wide resonance of the concept to its embeddedness in the logic of liberal capitalist society and the capitalist global division of labor. This conception allows us to see that, although the emergence of a sphere of civil society involves at least minimal democranization and is supportive of struggles for further democratization, the status of democracy is also made quite problematic by the tensions endemic to liberal capitalism and the processes of uneven development within international capitalism. Our usage also allows us to distinguish more clearly movements dedicated to the construction of civil society from those that may count actually as counter-civil society movements. David L. Blaney received his M.A. and Ph.D. at the Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver. He is on leave from Hanover College, Hanover, Indiana as a visiting scholar for the 1993–94 academic year at The Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 20052. His main research interests include international political economy, culture and international relations theory, and democratic theory. Mustapha Kamal Pasha received his M.A. and Ph.D. at the Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver. Currently, he is an assistant professor in the School of International Service, American University, Washington, D.C. 20016. His main research interests include international political economy, with particular regard to the Third World, and South Asian politics.     

The Olson ratio and indirectly endogenous rent

Public Choice - We consider an economy where the rent value depends indirectly on value-adding investment of agents (thus indirectly endogenous) and the win-probability is a function of rent...     

Moral Status, Human Identity, and Early Embryos: A Critique of the President''s Approach

Underlying President Bush's view regarding stemcell research and cloning are two assumptions: we originate at conception, and we have full moral status as soon as we originate. I will challenge both assumptions, argue that at least the second is mistaken, and conclude that the President's approach is unsustainable.     

Trade union behaviour and inter-regional variations in unemployment rates

An important problem in the political economy of the UK is that the disparity of unemployment rates across its regions is much more marked than the corresponding dispersion of wage rates. One possibility is that this is due to the attitude of trade unions to their members in different regions. If unions wish to preserve parity between members in different regions then they will value wage equality between regions over and above wage levels. This may then persuade them to overlook inter-regional productivity differences in setting wages. The price that low-efficiency regions will then pay for this desire for wage equality is higher unemployment rates.Much of the research for this paper was carried out while the author was visiting the Trade Union Economics Research Institute (FIEF), Stockholm in 1989. An earlier version of this paper was presented at a seminar there and the author is gratefully to Villy Bergstrom, Paul Chen, Douglas Hibbs, Eva Udden-Jondal and other institute members for several useful comments. Comments from Kevin Lee, John Spencer and an anonymous referee have also substantially improved the paper. The usual disclaimer applies.