Comparative Politics and Globalisation: Implications for Developing Countries

While nearly everyone would agree that the world has changed dramatically since the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, there would be less consensus as to what the impact has been on developing countries. For many people, one of the key post-1989 developments is globalisation – with its political and economic outcomes vis-à-vis the developing countries. Globalisation issues now inform – albeit often implicitly – much comparative analysis of developing countries’ politics and economics. That is, to understand what is happening both politically and economically in developing countries, it is widely recognised that analysis must now take account of, and be informed by, developments beyond state boundaries – at both regional and global levels. However, while it is widely accepted that globalisation is having an important impact upon both political and economic developments in many developing countries, there has been little, if any, sustained attempts to ascertain just how external factors and actors affect political and economic outcomes in developing countries. The main aim of the proposed section is to examine how external factors and actors comparatively affect political (and economic) outcomes in the developing countries. The time period of analysis is the post-Cold War era – that is, the 1990s and early 2000s. The starting point is the premise that the following are, inter alia, important events with subsequent – and continuing – impacts on political (and economic) outcomes in the developing countries: · The fall of dozens of authoritarian regimes and consequent attempts to democratise · Global economic liberalisation · Popular demands for more and better human and political rights · ‘Cultural’ – ethnic and religious - conflicts within many developing countries Substantive matters · Precise issues to be focused on · Types of papers required · Goals to be achieved Precise issues to be focused on The key analytical questions for the proposed section are: · How best to explain contemporary political (and economic) outcomes within developing countries? · Does the answer depend primarily on domestic, regional or global factors? · Or should we look to a mixture of all three? · If so, what is most important: domestic or external factors? The starting hypothesis is that, to some extent, the answer to the question depends upon the nature of the country in focus. For example, it seems sensible to assume that political outcomes in small, weak, developing countries will, typically, be affected by global factors, including, inter alia, political conditionality, democratisation trends, and global economic developments. On the other hand, one might assume that larger, developing countries – such as, India or China – might be less affected by these and other global factors. This is not least because such countries have both strong states and robust societies and, as a result, are more equipped to repel or ignore global trends and developments. Nevertheless, recent literature emphasises that, for example, the impact of regionalisation and globalisation on the countries of the European Union – filled, of course, with strong states and robust societies - is analytically important in terms of political, economic and cultural outcomes. For example, the contemporary rise of right-wing populism in several European countries is explained by reference to the following global and regional factors: · International chaos and insecurity, especially since ‘9/11’, buoyed by the premise that the United States is losing control of the globe · Population movements. The poor world is said to be moving into the rich world on a scale never before seen. Quite apart from the issue of whether such a movement is actually beneficial for European economies, the concern of the poor ‘other’ invading ‘Fortress Europe’ is exacerbated by the USA’s current war against ‘Islamic fundamentalism’, helping create or deepen new xenophobic populist propaganda · Global free trade. In Europe, this seems to create hopeless mental confusion that benefits the equally confused populists. Globalisation is said to be good when it leads to lower taxes and cheaper goods but bad if it amounts to a global free labour market (more immigration!) Away from Europe, for example, for right-wing populists of the BJP in India, globalisation is perceived to be ‘a good thing’ as it enables ideas, ideologies and funds to be transmitted around the world, not least to and from the Indian diaspora in Britain and the USA. It is, however, also a ‘bad’ thing for Hindu nationalists, because it: (1) reduces the ability of the state to put the interests of its own citizens first and (2) helps remove – or at least, potentially dilutes – national cultures. Globalisation may also allow regions and cities to defy weakened central governments and invent their own politics and culture. These and other developments highlight the fact that a consequence of globalisation is that traditional ways of examining political institutions and outcomes – in both European and non-European, developing countries – should go beyond a narrow focus with domestic contexts and characteristics. In sum, the scope of the section is: · The comparative politics and political economy of the countries of the developing world, including processes of regional integration and enlargement within international/global dynamics and economic dynamics. · An exploration of the dynamic relationships between transnational, international and domestic processes and practices as they affect political and economic developments and outcomes in developing countries. Types of papers required The section would welcome original theoretical, empirical and theoretically informed papers which aim to deal with the nature and consequences of globalisation and regionalisation for political and economic outcomes in developing countries. The aim should be to take into account not only the global dimension but also an enhanced understanding of how political cultures in developing countries are informed by not only domestic factors, but also by external – including transnational – factors. In particular, while ethnicity, religion, gender, the natural environment and human rights issues within developing countries are informed by developments at the regional and/or global level, it is little understood how the two universes connect. Such issues raise awkward questions about the limitations of existing disciplinary perspectives and theoretical conventions. To address these issues, there is a need for both theoretical and methodological innovation and ability to develop genuinely interdisciplinary approaches. In sum, the aim of the section is to seek to identify and explain what is happening politically and economically in the developing countries. This is a precondition to explain why it is occurring and what its ramifications might be. In short, the goal is to identify trends in, inter alia, electoral outcomes and political participation in developing countries by examining the interaction of domestic and global/regional factors. Please send proposals for papers to Prof Haynes . jeff.haynes@londonmet.ac.uk Goals to be achieved Following the General Conference, the aim would be to draw up a ‘doable’ project, locate a publisher for a book focusing upon the identified comparative politics framework and analysis, identify suitable further conferences, and, possibly, draw up a list of potential journals to target with the fruits of research. Relevance of the section to existing literature and theory and how the section would aim to augment existing work Both content and boundaries of comparative politics are poorly defined – partly because the ‘field’ is an ambiguous compound of method, subject area and its own intellectual history. Yet, it is widely accepted that comparative method is a useful way of learning and teaching political science. That is, one learns by comparing entities that have some similarities and then examining the reasons for the observed differences. Whether the focus is on developed or developing countries, the main analytical focus is political institutions – in particular, the executive, legislative, and judiciary. But while understanding cannot be complete without undertaking this exercise, it does not always produce a realistic assessment of either the functioning or the power structures within contemporary states. At the very least, as noted above, there is the complex, if crucial, impact of globalisation with which to contend and to factor into analysis. Some political scientists have sought to extend the concerns of comparative politics to political parties, pressure groups, centre-periphery relations and political development. To date, however, there has been only limited concern with the impact of global factors, in particular relevant transnational actors, sometimes lumped together in the concept of global or transnational civil society. One aim of the section would be to examine the impact of such actors in domestic political contexts. The success or failure of endeavours in comparative politics is sometimes attributed to the possibility of reliable quantification. Thus, for example, comparative studies of electoral systems may produce fairly reliable predictive models. On the other hand, attempts to compile ‘democratic indices’ in order to predict which developing countries are likely to evolve into sustainable (or consolidated) democracies sometimes fall back upon trying to devise indices of tolerance or trust. Such values, however, are not easily quantifiable. During the section’s deliberations, section members would debate the preferred comparative method, especially in relation to the weight to be attached to external factors in understanding political and economic outcomes in developing countries.