Collected papers of the Ford Foundation Interdisciplinary Research Seminar on Regional and Global Issues: Fall and spring semester

Arms Control & Domestic and International Security (ACDIS

Warlike and Peaceful Societies

"Are humans violent or peaceful by nature? We are both. In this ambitious and wide-ranging book, Agner Fog presents a ground-breaking new argument that explains the existence of differently organised societies using evolutionary theory. It combines natural sciences and social sciences in a way that is rarely seen. According to a concept called regality theory, people show a preference for authoritarianism and strong leadership in times of war or collective danger, but desire egalitarian political systems in times of peace and safety. These individual impulses shape the way societies develop and organise themselves, and in this book Agner argues that there is an evolutionary mechanism behind this flexible psychology. Incorporating a wide range of ideas including evolutionary theory, game theory, and ecological theory, Agner analyses the conditions that make us either strident or docile. He tests this theory on data from contemporary and ancient societies, and provides a detailed explanation of the applications of regality theory to issues of war and peace, the rise and fall of empires, the mass media, economic instability, ecological crisis, and much more. Warlike and Peaceful Societies: The Interaction of Genes and Culture draws on many different fields of both the social sciences and the natural sciences. It will be of interest to academics and students in these fields, including anthropology, political science, history, conflict and peace research, social psychology, and more, as well as the natural sciences, including human biology, human evolution, and ecology.

Chapter 6: State-Building and Democracy

https://nsuworks.nova.edu/hcas_dcrs_facbooks/1038/thumbnail.jp

Evolution Of Political Cleavages And Entry Of The Far-right In Government Coalitions In Italy And Poland

This project focuses on a comparative analysis of governing coalitions between conservative and far-right parties in recent years in Italy (1994) and Poland (2005). The aim is to show how the inclusion of the radical right in government coalitions in these countries reflects recent changes in Western and Eastern European party systems through the reformulation of the old and formation of new party cleavages. The focus in the recent literature on personality clashes of party leaders over the distribution of ministry portfolios does not explain the nature of the disagreement between these leaders about key issues of national politics. I argue that the mechanism of policy formulation between prospective coalitional partners can be traced at the level of party cleavages which pre-exist the negotiation process between party leaders. The political breakthrough of the far-right parties became possible because of the development of new issues related to the process of European integration and based on the longstanding confrontation between the left and right parties since the beginning of the Cold War. The disintegration of the previous party systems as a result of the collapse of the Communist regime in Poland and the First Republic in Italy in the post-Cold War era created a vacuum partly exploited by the previous anti-system far-right parties and the new emerging ones. At the same time, a clear tendency toward the cartelization of the programmatic supply was prominent on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum. I argue that the rise to prominence of center-right coalitions in the two countries led by Silvio Berlusconi and Jaroslav Kachinskiy respectively represents not only a new dimension in the development of the right wing in Europe but also constitutes a model of political realignment where new cleavages are gradually substituting for the old cleavages described in the Lipset-Rokkan model

Challenging the rulers: a leadership model for good governance

Edited by Joseph Kwaka, Okoth Okombo, Barrack Muluka & Betty Sungura-Nyabuto with an introduction by Henry Indangasi.One of the fundamental principles of effective leadership has remained the same for generations simply because leadership touches on human relations. What often changes are the tactics that leaders employ to get things done depending on the needs. Therefore, as we look at leadership that is effective in this century, we are not in any way re-inventing the wheel. Domesticating past leadership styles to suit current realities is the way to begin. Not all styles of leadership are effective in the same sense. It was fine long ago to embrace leaders who used command or who employed what is known as the boss syndrome. This kind of leadership, although used in some quarters, has proved to be less effective in the present world. The “do as I say” leader will face a reasonable amount of resistance. Times have changed and so should the style of leadership. The command leadership style of yesteryear simply cannot bear results in a world that is more liberal. Commanders, even in the military, have learned there are better ways to achieve results with followers in today’s world. Leadership has been studied through three theoretical frameworks at different points in time. First, in the 1930 and early 1940s, most scholars based their research and writings on trait theories. The emphasis of these theories was that individual characteristics of leaders are different from those of the non-leaders. The premise of this school was that leaders were born, not made. Such leaders were the so called “big men” whose names sometimes would not be mentioned in public. Realising that the traits alone cannot capture the qualities and the achievements of some leaders, leadership studies came to include aspects of special behaviours that make leaders stand out. Scholars in the 1940s and the 1950s examined who and what leaders are based, on behavioural theories. The premise of these theories is that behaviours of effective leaders are different from those of ineffective leaders. The leadership styles during this period and which spilled into the 1960s were “people-focused” or “result-focused”. The whole idea was that leaders were judged based on what they were able to achieve and what they did while in office. It did not really matter whether or not they were “born leaders”. A leader could become effective through training and development. 96 Challenging the Rulers: A Leadership Model for Good Governance The 1960s and the early 1970s saw the emergence of a new type of leader whose leadership could not effectively be explained by the earlier theories. Thus, new studies began to view leadership through the lense of situational or contingency theories. The premise of these theories is that unique factors or particular situations determined whether a specific leader was effective or not. In this respect, situational factors interacted with the leader’s traits and behaviour to influence leadership effectiveness, generally producing what is widely known as charismatic leaders. These are leaders who are usually admired by their followers because of the energies and enthusiasm they bring into the scene. Their followers show near total dedication and unquestioning loyalty. More studies later revealed that there are leaders whose leadership practices transcend the theories above. Some scholars in the 1980s and 1990s saw leadership as skills-based. Here the emphasis is on what effective leaders do, based on the skills acquired. This kind of leadership was highlighted by the transformative theories which tend to investigate what transactions of traits, behaviours and situations allow certain people to transform for excellence. In the 21st century, the emphasis shifted to visionary leadership. The idea of visionary leadership is synonymous with marshalling people behind a compelling vision of a better future. In this situation, the interest is in what is required to inspire, unite and mobilise the masses. Finally, there are alternative leadership theories which examine other types of leadership which do not quite fit into the categories above. These include servant leadership, authentic leadership and collective leadership. For this chapter, we shall examine servant leadership. Servant leadership reflects a philosophy that leaders should be servants first. It suggests that leaders must place the needs of their followers ahead of their own interests in order to be effective. Servant leadership begins from the natural feeling that one really wants to serve. That one naturally wants to help others is then followed by a conscious choice to aspire to lead. Servant leadership is characterised by the following attributes: empathy, stewardship, listening, awareness, persuasion and foresight, commitment to the personal, professional and spiritual growth of the followers. Servant leadership is about moving individuals and communities at large to a higher level of progress.One of the fundamental principles of effective leadership has remained the same for generations simply because leadership touches on human relations. What often changes are the tactics that leaders employ to get things done depending on the needs. Therefore, as we look at leadership that is effective in this century, we are not in any way re-inventing the wheel. Domesticating past leadership styles to suit current realities is the way to begin. Not all styles of leadership are effective in the same sense. It was fine long ago to embrace leaders who used command or who employed what is known as the boss syndrome. This kind of leadership, although used in some quarters, has proved to be less effective in the present world. The “do as I say” leader will face a reasonable amount of resistance. Times have changed and so should the style of leadership. The command leadership style of yesteryear simply cannot bear results in a world that is more liberal. Commanders, even in the military, have learned there are better ways to achieve results with followers in today’s world. Leadership has been studied through three theoretical frameworks at different points in time. First, in the 1930 and early 1940s, most scholars based their research and writings on trait theories. The emphasis of these theories was that individual characteristics of leaders are different from those of the non-leaders. The premise of this school was that leaders were born, not made. Such leaders were the so called “big men” whose names sometimes would not be mentioned in public. Realising that the traits alone cannot capture the qualities and the achievements of some leaders, leadership studies came to include aspects of special behaviours that make leaders stand out. Scholars in the 1940s and the 1950s examined who and what leaders are based, on behavioural theories. The premise of these theories is that behaviours of effective leaders are different from those of ineffective leaders. The leadership styles during this period and which spilled into the 1960s were “people-focused” or “result-focused”. The whole idea was that leaders were judged based on what they were able to achieve and what they did while in office. It did not really matter whether or not they were “born leaders”. A leader could become effective through training and development. 96 Challenging the Rulers: A Leadership Model for Good Governance The 1960s and the early 1970s saw the emergence of a new type of leader whose leadership could not effectively be explained by the earlier theories. Thus, new studies began to view leadership through the lense of situational or contingency theories. The premise of these theories is that unique factors or particular situations determined whether a specific leader was effective or not. In this respect, situational factors interacted with the leader’s traits and behaviour to influence leadership effectiveness, generally producing what is widely known as charismatic leaders. These are leaders who are usually admired by their followers because of the energies and enthusiasm they bring into the scene. Their followers show near total dedication and unquestioning loyalty. More studies later revealed that there are leaders whose leadership practices transcend the theories above. Some scholars in the 1980s and 1990s saw leadership as skills-based. Here the emphasis is on what effective leaders do, based on the skills acquired. This kind of leadership was highlighted by the transformative theories which tend to investigate what transactions of traits, behaviours and situations allow certain people to transform for excellence. In the 21st century, the emphasis shifted to visionary leadership. The idea of visionary leadership is synonymous with marshalling people behind a compelling vision of a better future. In this situation, the interest is in what is required to inspire, unite and mobilise the masses. Finally, there are alternative leadership theories which examine other types of leadership which do not quite fit into the categories above. These include servant leadership, authentic leadership and collective leadership. For this chapter, we shall examine servant leadership. Servant leadership reflects a philosophy that leaders should be servants first. It suggests that leaders must place the needs of their followers ahead of their own interests in order to be effective. Servant leadership begins from the natural feeling that one really wants to serve. That one naturally wants to help others is then followed by a conscious choice to aspire to lead. Servant leadership is characterised by the following attributes: empathy, stewardship, listening, awareness, persuasion and foresight, commitment to the personal, professional and spiritual growth of the followers. Servant leadership is about moving individuals and communities at large to a higher level of progress

State Failure Revisited II : Actors of Violence and Alternative Forms of Governance

This INEF report is the companion piece to “State Failure Revisited I: Globalization of Security and Neighborhood Effects” (INEF Report 87/2007). While the first working paper mainly took a structural perspective and dealt with the global and regional level, the contributions in our new study put those actors in the spotlight who shape national and local arenas. Daniel Biró’s paper on warlordism in the “Westphalian Periphery” reconstructs different waves of warlord analysis (European feudalism; China at the beginning of the 20th century; Africa in the 1990s) and evaluates the usefulness of applying related concepts like praetorianism, organized crime, caudillismo, and insurgency. The article challenges the dominant view that warlords are almost exclusively driven by economic interests and instead looks at warlordism as an alternative form of governance in contexts that are defined by “oligopolies of violence”. Under these circumstances, warlords impact state‐building and may even allow for the provision of public goods. Driving factors are the warlord’s need to mobilize a minimum degree of legitimacy within local communities or his aspiration to gain control over society. Furthermore, as Biró argues, warlords may hold the local population captive if humanitarian organizations are willing to deliver social services as they can thus diversify their modes of ‘resource extraction’ and increase their autonomy. Andreas Mehler and Judy Smith‐Höhn present an empirical case study on Liberia and Sierra Leone. Which security‐relevant actors are perceived as being able to offer protection? Who is a potential source of threat? Preliminary answers to these guiding questions are given for Liberia, based on data collected in 2006. It turns out that urban respondents regarded the UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) as overwhelmingly important for their personal safety, followed by the Liberia National Police (18.4%). Vigilantes, area teams, and neighborhood watches were assessed as ambivalent, being partly a source of protection but also a source of concern. The major threats for personal security, however, obviously stem from street boys, ex‐combatants, political party militias, and secret societies. The contribution concludes that international engagement in security sector reform will remain crucial. But it also argues that a clear understanding of all relevant local players, including non‐state actors, is necessitated because their relevance will grow as soon as external actors withdraw their personnel and resources

Toward a theory of the evolution of business ecosystems : enterprise architectures, competitive dynamics, firm performance & industrial co-evolution

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division, 2009.Cataloged from PDF version of thesis. Vita.Includes bibliographical references (v. 4, p. 698-745).This dissertation contributes toward the building of a theory of the evolution of business ecosystems. In the process, it addresses a question that has been posed by evolutionary theorists in the economics and sociology literatures for decades: "Why do firms in the same industry vary systematically in performance over time?" Seeking a systematic explanation of a longitudinal phenomenon inevitably requires characterizing the evolution of the industrial ecosystem, as both the organization (firm) and its environment (industry, markets and institutions) are co-evolving. This question is therefore explored via a theoretical sample in three industrial ecosystems covering manufacturing and service sectors, with competitors from the US, Europe and Japan: commercial airplanes, motor vehicles and airlines. The research is based primarily on an in depth seven-year, multi-level, multi-method, field-based case study of both firms in the large commercial airplanes industry mixed duopoly as well as the key stakeholders in their extended enterprises (i.e. customers, suppliers, investors and employees). This field work is supplemented with historical comparative analysis in all three industries, as well as nonlinear dynamic simulation models developed to capture the essential mechanisms governing the evolution of business ecosystems.(cont.) A theoretical framework is developed which endogenously traces the co-evolution of firms and their industrial environments using their highest-level system properties of form, function and fitness (as reflected in the system sciences of morphology, physiology and ecology), and which embraces the evolutionary processes of variation, selection and retention. The framework captures the path-dependent evolution of heterogeneous populations of enterprise architectures engaged in symbiotic inter-species competition and posits the evolution of dominant designs in enterprise architectures that oscillate deterministically and chaotically between modular and integral states throughout an industry's life-cycle. Architectural innovation - at the extended enterprise level - is demonstrated to contribute to the failure of established firms, with causal mechanisms developed to explain tipping points.by Theodore F. Piepenbrock.Ph.D