In This Issue
| Author | Yvonne Galligan |
| Published date | 01 March 2008 |
| Date | 01 March 2008 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0192512108091376 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
International Political Science Review (2008), Vol. 29, No. 2, 131–132
In This Issue
Understanding processes of change is an important feature of political science
research and is the common thread uniting the articles in this issue. The authors
reflect on attitudinal, institutional and policy changes in particular national and
cross-national contexts, exploring the political implications of these changes.
The issue begins with Steel and Kabashima comparing attitudes towards gender
equality in Japan with those found in other East Asian countries (Cross-Regional
Support for Gender Equality). They challenge the thesis that economic modernization
brings with it a convergence in social attitudes and values towards a Western, liberal
democratic “norm.” They suggest that the processes of modernization experienced
in East Asia and the national ideologies supporting these processes were very
different to those experienced in other industrialized countries. The policies and
practice s resulting from East As ian modernization contrib uted to deepeni ng
gender segregation, and these processes of change resulted in significantly lower
levels of support for gender equality than is found in Western countries. For Steel
and Kabashima, the political-ideological context of modernization is a critical
factor in any discussion of attitudes towards gender equality, producing different
effects in different parts of the world.
Gel’man examines the process of regime change in three post-communist
countries, Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus (Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire? Post-
Soviet Regime Change in Comparative Perspective). His core question is one that sparks
considerable discussion in political science – why do some countries become
democratic while others do not? As with Steel and Kabashima above, he is critical
of the explanatory power of modernization, and also finds path dependency
theories unsatisfactory in accounting for the survival and development of new
institutions. He develops an analysis of regime change focusing on political elites
and their relationships, the resources available to them and the relative costs for
elites of pursuing various strategies. He addresses other contextual factors such
as the legacy of the past and the present institutional framework to explain why
the opportunity for democracy in the Ukraine is more positive than in Belarus
and Russia. Gel’man’s model invites further application in the study of regime
change.
The third article in this issue, by Sanjay Gupta (The Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike:
Application and Implications during the Administration of President George W. Bush),
also deals with change, this time in the context of international security. In a
political-legal study, Gupta shows how the US asserted a right to take unilateral
military action as a pre-emptive form of defence. While noting that the concept of
DOI: 10.1177/0192512108091376 © 2008 International Political Science Association
Sage Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Singapore)
To continue reading
Request your trial