Indonesia Returns to the International Stage: Good News for the United States

Indonesia, the world's fourth largest country, third largest democracy and home to the world's largest community of Muslims, has returned to the international stage. Indonesia's membership in a number of important global communities-it resides physically in Asia but is part of the broader Muslim world, the developing world, and the community of democracies-makes it an important international actor. Many Americans assume that common democratic values will translate into shared foreign policy goals and cooperation between the United States and Indonesia. The two countries do share significant interests, such as counter terrorism, maritime security, and a wariness of China, but also hold starkly different positions on the Middle East peace process and global trade issues. Democracy provides opportunities for the two-thirds of Indonesians who hold anti-American views to influence foreign policy, making it costly for Indonesian leaders to cooperate with the United States. Indonesia's return is good news for America, but the relationship needs to be managed skillfully to maximize benefits for both sides.     

Policy learning and change during crisis: COVID-19 policy responses across six states

Whereas policy change is often characterized as a gradual and incremental process, effective crisis response necessitates that organizations adapt to evolving problems in near real time. Nowhere is this dynamic more evident than in the case of COVID-19, which forced subnational governments to constantly adjust and recalibrate public health and disease mitigation measures in the face of changing patterns of viral transmission and the emergence of new information. This study assesses (a) the extent to which subnational policies changed over the course of the pandemic; (b) whether these changes are emblematic of policy learning; and (c) the drivers of these changes, namely changing political and public health conditions. Using a novel dataset analyzing each policy's content, including its timing of enactment, substantive focus, stringency, and similar variables, results indicate the pandemic response varied significantly across states. The states examined were responsive to both changing public health and political conditions. This study identifies patterns of preemptive policy learning, which denotes learning in anticipation of an emerging hazard. In doing so, the study provides important insights into the dynamics of policy learning and change during disaster.     

Preemption, Unilateralism, and Hegemony: The American Tradition?

Historian John Lewis Gaddis has found precedent for the current war on terror in early American history, arguing that the British burning of the capitol in 1814 had an impact on defense policy similar to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, leading to an emphasis on preemption. In basic respects, Gaddis restates the consensus among diplomatic historians that the early republic's foreign policy focused on preemption, unilateralism, and hegemony. But these depictions of early American diplomacy conflate separate eras and ignore an opposing tradition that was more moderate and principled. They are not without some truth, but their imperious sway in histories of our country needs to be checked and balanced.     

Premature or stillborn? – The recent challenge to the Digital Economy Act

The High Court has recently delivered judgment on the judicial review of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA) and the draft Costs Order¹ on application by BT and Talktalk.² Mr Justice Kenneth Parker rejected the application on all but one ground (one aspect of the cost sharing arrangement). See: The Queen on the Application of British Telecommunications Plc, Talktalk Telecom Group Plc v The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin), Judgment of 20. April 2011.     

Quasi‐welfare,associationalism and the social division of citizenship

It is widely acknowledged that in many advanced capitalist societies, the role and structure of the welfare state has undergone substantial changes in recent decades. Arguments continue about the precise causes, and about the trajectory and impact of those changes. One particular strand in the debate has concerned the nature of the transformation of the welfare state in relation to the wider economy, and whether these changes reflect a ‘post‐Fordist’ welfare regime; while another important theme concerns the consequences of cultural and social differentiation, and the extent to which ‘postmodernism’ entails a fundamental dissolution of conventional assumptions about social policy. Radical reconstruction of the institutions, and questioning of the functions of welfare states, are resulting in more complex and heterogeneous patterns of social provision. At the same time, increased theoretical emphasis on, and popular demand for, choice, consumerism and diversity represent a significant challenge to, and perhaps the abandonment of, longstanding precepts about universalism in welfare. This article reviews some of the key themes in this debate, and supports arguments that predict that the universalist goals and principles of welfare are likely to be displaced by moves towards a ‘marketised’ system of quasi‐welfare in an atomised, anomic and fragmented society. The article addresses several issues: first, it briefly discusses some of the main implications of recent theorising about post‐Fordism and postmodernism; secondly it considers the emergence and consequences of’ quasi‐markets’ in social policy; and finally it challenges the claim that the revival of ‘associationalism in civil society offers a remedy for some of the principal (alleged) defects of the welfare state.