Review: Volume 10 - Modern Politics

Review: Volume 10 - Modern Politics


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Duncan Thompson provides a concise summary of the hitherto neglected history of New Left Review and its political and intellectual development from 1962 to the present. Perry Anderson, Robin Blackburn et al. emerged as the leading figures of a second new left around New Left Review six years after the new left first emerged in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Hungary and Britain and France's invasion of Suez. Thompson traces NLR's attempts to develop socialist politics, through the 'old' Labour of Harold Wilson, through heady days in 1968, through new Marxist theory, through the Cold War years and into the era of contemporary capitalist globalisation. He surveys the achievements of NLR: a respectable academic reputation has been won, but it has not succeeded in achieving or facilitating the primary goal of the second New Left, that of finding a strategy for transition to socialism.

In the last decade, two events have transformed the world: the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of militant Islam. This is the first book to explain the link between these two occurrences. George Crile spent nearly a decade researching and writing this original account of the biggest, most expensive secret war in history: the arming of the Afghan resistance to Soviet occupation. Moving from the secret chambers in CIA headquarters to stand-offs in the Khyber Pass, Charlie Wilson's "War" is one of the most thorough and vivid descriptions of CIA operations ever written. It is the missing chapter in the geopolitics of our time.


The Review of Politics

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

  • ISSN: 0034-6705
  • EISSN: 1748-6858
  • URL: /core/journals/review-of-politics

You are leaving Cambridge Core and will be taken to this journal's article submission site.

  • ISSN: 0034-6705 (Print) , 1748-6858 (Online)
  • Editor: Ruth M. Abbey University of Notre Dame, USA

The Review of Politics publishes high-quality original research that advances scholarly debates in all areas of political theory. We welcome manuscripts on the history of political thought, analytical political theory, canonical political thought, contemporary political thought, comparative political thought, critical theory, or literature and political thought. While quality of scholarship and clear contribution to progressing scholarly debates are the key criteria for inclusion, we also strive to publish cutting-edge research in a way that is maximally accessible to as wide an audience as possible.

We also have a substantial book review section that offers high-quality reviews of new books about political theory, philosophy, and intellectual history.

Founded in 1939 by Waldemar Gurian, The Review of Politics has published articles by authors as distinguished and diverse as Hannah Arendt, John Kenneth Galbraith, Jacques Maritain, Yves R. Simon, Talcott Parsons, Clinton Rossiter, Edward Shils, Leo Strauss, and Eric Voegelin.


Annual Review of Political Science

AIMS AND SCOPE OF JOURNAL: The Annual Review of Political Science, in publication since 1998, covers significant developments in the field of Political Science including political theory and philosophy, international relations, political economy, political behavior, American and comparative politics, public administration and policy, and methodology.

The Annual Review of Political Science publishes reviews commissioned by the Editorial Committee. We do not solicit volunteer proposals and rarely publish unsolicited manuscripts. However, focused proposals for essays that review the work of many scholars can be directed to the Production Editor, Kim Transier, for consideration by the Editorial Committee at its annual meeting.

The Economics and Politics of Preferential Trade Agreements

The number of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) has skyrocketed over the past 20 years. In addition to reducing barriers at the border, modern PTAs remove many behind-the-border barriers by regulating foreign direct investment (FDI), liberalizing services, and protecting intellectual property rights. This article surveys the literature explaining the formation of PTAs and their consequences.

Drugs and War: What Is the Relationship?

Explores the long history between psychoactive substances and warfare in all its different dimensions, with discussion of political, societal and health implications.


Review: Volume 10 - Modern Politics - History

You have requested a machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Neither BioOne nor the owners and publishers of the content make, and they explicitly disclaim, any express or implied representations or warranties of any kind, including, without limitation, representations and warranties as to the functionality of the translation feature or the accuracy or completeness of the translations.

Translations are not retained in our system. Your use of this feature and the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Use of the BioOne website.

The Politics of ‘Avoided Deforestation’: Historical Context and Contemporary Issues

1 Geography Discipline, Faculty of Social Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshir

Includes PDF & HTML, when available

This article is only available to subscribers.
It is not available for individual sale.

This paper outlines the ideas and political debates that contributed to the December 2007 decision of parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change to explore ways of reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries, what is referred to here as ‘avoided deforestation’ (AD). Although the decision reflected international concern at anthropogenic climate change and deforestation (especially in the tropics), the concept of AD, and contemporary debates on this subject, need to be understood in a broader historical context. International political disagreements on the distribution of the world's natural, financial and technological resources and on global social inequalities are now enmeshed with international forest and climate politics. The paper discusses two variants of an international AD carbon trading and ODA. It then explores some of the political controversies that are likely to arise when agreeing the fine details of an international mechanism for AD.


Choice, Culture and the Politics of Belonging: The Emerging Law of Forced and Arranged Marriage

a Máiréad Enright, BCL (NUI) MA (Lond.) BL (King's Inns) is a PhD candidate at the Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights at the Faculty of Law, University College Cork. Thanks to Siobhán Mullally, Fiona de Londras, Sharron Fitzgerald, Deirdre Duffy, Aoife O'Donoghue and the Modern Law Review's anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts. Thanks also to Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC for materials. The research for this article is funded by an IRCHSS scholarship held in conjunction with the thematic research project in Gender, Multiculturalism and the Law in Ireland at University College Cork and by the NUI EJ Phelan Fellowship in International Law.

a Máiréad Enright, BCL (NUI) MA (Lond.) BL (King's Inns) is a PhD candidate at the Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights at the Faculty of Law, University College Cork. Thanks to Siobhán Mullally, Fiona de Londras, Sharron Fitzgerald, Deirdre Duffy, Aoife O'Donoghue and the Modern Law Review's anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts. Thanks also to Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC for materials. The research for this article is funded by an IRCHSS scholarship held in conjunction with the thematic research project in Gender, Multiculturalism and the Law in Ireland at University College Cork and by the NUI EJ Phelan Fellowship in International Law.

Abstract

The article discusses recent legal and policy initiatives aimed at preventing forced marriage, placing them in the broader context of the exclusionary governance of British Muslim cultural difference. It argues that forced marriage is understood almost entirely as a product of cultural difference. Thus, attempts to prevent forced marriage focus on the control of cultural pressures at the point of marriage. This near-exclusive focus on culture has two consequences for women. First, inadequate attention is paid to the social and economic problems which intersect with and aggravate cultural factors restricting women's marital choice. Second, this problematisation of culture has generated paternalistic legislation with the consequence that young women who wish to follow cultural practice and fully consent to an arranged marriage may be prevented from marrying as they choose.


The Two-party System and Duverger's Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science

Science involves the accumulation of knowledge, which means not only the formulation of new sentences about discoveries but also the reformulation of empirically falsified or theoretically discredited old sentences. Science has therefore a history that is mainly a chronicle and interpretation of a series of reformulations. It is often asserted that political science has no history. Although this assertion is perhaps motivated by a desire to identify politics with belles lettres, it may also have a reasonable foundation, in that political institutions may change faster than knowledge can be accumulated. To investigate whether propositions about evanescent institutions can be scientifically falsified and reformulated, I examine in this essay the history of the recent and not wholly accepted revisions of the propositions collectively called Duverger's law: that the plurality rule for selecting the winner of elections favors the two-party system. The body of the essay presents the discovery, revision, testing, and reformulation of sentences in this series in order to demonstrate that in at least one instance in political science, knowledge has been accumulated and a history exists.


No, Modern Policing Did Not Originate with Slavery

Police officers patrol Times Square in New York City, July 3, 2015. (Andrew Kelly/Reuters)

NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE N ikole Hannah-Jones of the New York Times’ 1619 Project is at it again in her effort to paint everything in America as a product of slavery. This time, she is trying to tie “modern policing” to antebellum citizen slave patrols. This fundamentally misunderstands what “modern policing” means.

Here is what Hannah-Jones told CBS News, which framed her quote as proving that “what we’re seeing now has a disturbing link to the past:”

In certain parts of the country, modern policing has direct lineage to the slave patrols. The slave patrols deputized white Americans to stop, to question, to search any black person


Talking Politics | History Of Ideas

History Of Ideas is a podcast sharing talks by David Runciman in which he explores some of the most important thinkers and prominent ideas lying behind modern politics – from Hobbes to Gandhi, from democracy to patriarchy, from revolution to lockdown.

David also talks about the crises – revolutions, wars, depressions, pandemics – that generated these new ways of political thinking.

Created by the team that brought you Talking Politics: this podcast is a history of ideas to help make sense of what’s happening today.

“This podcast is a treasure! It is both entertaining and intellectually demanding… a shelter in the middle of this pandemic storm. I can’t thank you enough for taking the time to record it.” Apple Podcast Listener

“A magnificent spin-off podcast series from Talking Politics –⁩ it’s like a third (and better) year of A Level politics.” Twitter Follower


Wehler was born in Freudenberg, Westphalia. He studied history and sociology in Cologne, Bonn and, on a Fulbright scholarship, at Ohio University in the United States working for six months as a welder and a truck driver in Los Angeles. He took his PhD in 1960 under Theodor Schieder at the University of Cologne. His dissertation examined social democracy and the nation state and the question of nationality in Germany between 1840 and 1914. His postdoctoral thesis on Bismarck and imperialism, opened the way for an academic career. His habilitation project on "American imperialism between 1865 and 1900", supported by the American Council of Learned Societies, permitted him to do research in American libraries in 1962–1953 and resulted in two books. In all he spent six years in the US and was strongly influenced by its academic structures and by research in comparative modernization. [3]

Wehler and his colleagues Jürgen Kocka and Reinhart Koselleck founded the Bielefeld School of historical analysis. Instead of emphasizing the political aspects of history, which is the conventional approach, its proponents concentrate on sociocultural developments. History as "historical social science", as Wehler described it, has been explored mainly in the context of studies of German society in the 19th and the 20th centuries. He served as editor of the new journal Geschichte und Gesellschaft [de] from 1975.

He married Renate Pfitsch in 1958 and had three children with her.

In 2003, Wehler won the NRW State Prize. [5]

Wehler is a leader of the so-called Bielefeld School, a group of historians who use the methods of the social sciences to analyze history. [6]

Social history developed within West German historiography in the 1950s the 1960s as a successor to the national history, which was discredited by National Socialism. The German brand of "history of society" (Gesellschaftsgeschichte) has been known from its beginning in the 1960s for its application of sociological and political modernization theories to German history. Modernization theory was presented by Wehler and the Bielefeld School as the way to transform "traditional" German history, that is, national political history, centred on a few "great men," into an integrated and comparative history of German society encompassing societal structures outside politics. Wehler drew upon the modernization theory of Max Weber, with concepts also from Karl Marx, Otto Hintze, Gustav Schmoller, Werner Sombart and Thorstein Veblen. [7]

Wehler's Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte, (1987-) is a comprehensive five-volume history of German society in the 18th to the 20th centuries. Each volume approaches historical processes from a social history perspective, organized under the themes of demographics, economics, and social equality. His detailed structural analysis of developmental processes supported by a vast body of notes and statistics sometimes obscures the larger context. Nonetheless, patterns of continuity and change in the social fabric are emphasized. More than a historiographical synthesis of Ranke and Marx (envisioned by some German historians after the catastrophe of World War I), Wehler's work incorporates Max Weber's concepts of authority, economy, and culture and strives toward a concept of "total history."

Volumes 1-2 cover the period from feudalism through the Revolution of 1848. Volume 3 Von der "Deutschen Doppelrevolution" bis zum Beginn des Ersten Weltkrieges 1849-1914 (1995) employs Wehler's longtime emphasis on a German Sonderweg or "special path" as the root of Nazism and the German catastrophe in the 20th century. Wehler places the origins of Germany's path to disaster in the 1860s and the 1870s, when economic modernization took place, but political modernization failed to take place and the old Prussian rural elite remained in firm control of the army, diplomacy and the civil service. Traditional, aristocratic, premodern society battled an emerging capitalist, bourgeois, modernizing society. Recognizing the importance of modernizing forces in industry and the economy and in the cultural realm, Wehler argued that reactionary traditionalism dominated the political hierarchy of power in Germany, as well as social mentalities and in class relations (Klassenhabitus). Wehler's Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte: Vom Beginn des Ersten Weltkrieges bis zur Gründung der beiden Deutschen Staaten 1914-1949 (2003) is the fourth volume of his monumental history of German society. Germany's catastrophic politics between 1914 and 1945 are interpreted in terms of a delayed modernization of its political structures.

At the core of Wehler's fourth volume is his treatment of "the middle class" and "revolution," each of which was instrumental in shaping the 20th century. Wehler's examination of Nazi rule is shaped by his concept of "charismatic domination," which focuses heavily on Adolf Hitler. The fifth volume extended to 1990 none of the series has yet been translated into English. [8]

From the 1980s, however, the Bielefeld school was increasingly challenged by proponents of the "cultural turn" for not incorporating culture in the history of society, for reducing politics to society, and for reducing individuals to structures. Historians of society inverted the traditional positions they criticized (on the model of Marx's inversion of Hegel). As a result, the problems pertaining to the positions criticized were not resolved but only turned on their heads. The traditional focus on individuals was inverted into a modern focus on structures, and traditional emphatic understanding was inverted into modern causal explanation. [9]

Wehler specialised in research into the Second Reich. He was one of the more famous proponents of the Sonderweg (Special Path) thesis that argues Germany in the 19th century underwent only partial modernization. [6] Wehler has argued that Germany was the only nation to be created in Western Europe through a military "revolution from above", which happened to occur at the same time that the agricultural revolution was fading and the Industrial Revolution was beginning in Central Europe. [10] As a result, the economic sphere was modernized and the social sphere partially modernized. [6] Politically, in Wehler's opinion, the new unified Germany retained values that were aristocratic and feudal, anti-democratic and pre-modern. [6] In Wehler's view, the efforts of the reactionary German élite to retain power led to the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, the failure of the Weimar Republic and the coming of the Third Reich. [6]

Wehler has especially criticised what he terms Otto von Bismarck's strategy of "negative integration" by which Bismarck sought to create a sense of Deutschtum (Germanism) and to consolidate his power by subjecting various minority groups (such as Roman Catholics, Alsatians, Poles and Social Democrats) to discriminatory laws. Wehler is one of the foremost advocates of the "Berlin War Party" historical school, which assigns the sole and exclusive responsibility for World War I to the German government.

Wehler sees the aggressive foreign policies of the German Empire, especially under Kaiser Wilhelm II, largely as part of an effort on the part of the government to distract the German people from the lack of internal democracy. [6] The Primat der Innenpolitik ("primacy of domestic politics") argument to explain foreign policy, for which Wehler owes much to the work of Eckart Kehr, places him against the traditional Primat der Außenpolitik ("primacy of foreign politics") thesis championed by historians, such as Gerhard Ritter, Klaus Hildebrand, Andreas Hillgruber and Ludwig Dehio. [6] Wehler advocates the concept of social imperialism, which he defined as "the diversions outwards of internal tensions and forces of change in order to preserve the social and political status quo", and as a "defensive ideology" to counter the "disruptive effects of industrialization on the social and economic structure of Germany". [11]

Wehler thought that the German government haf used social imperialism as a device to allow it to distract public attention from domestic problems to the benefit of preserving the existing social and political order. [11] Wehler argued that the dominant elites used social imperialism as the glue to hold together a fractured society and to maintain popular support for the social status quo. [11] He further argued that German colonial policy in the 1880s provides the first example of social imperialism in action, followed by the "Tirpitz Plan" to expand the German Navy from 1897 onwards. [11] That point of view sees groups such as the Colonial Society and the Navy League as government instruments to mobilise public support. [11] Wehler saw the demands for annexing most of Europe and Africa in World War I as the pinnacle of social imperialism. [11]

In the 1970s, Wehler became involved in a somewhat-discordant and acrimonious debate with Hildebrand and Hillgruber over the merits of both approaches to diplomatic history. [12] Hillgruber and Hildebrand argued for the traditional Primat der Aussenpolitik approach with empirical research on the foreign-policy making elite, but Wehler argued for the Primat der Innenpolitik approach, treating diplomatic history as a sub-branch of social history with the focus on theoretical research. [12] The two major intellectual influences Wehler cites are Karl Marx and Max Weber [13]

Wehler often criticised traditional German historiography with its emphasis on political events, the role of the individual in history and history as an art as unacceptably conservative and incapable of properly explaining the past. [6]

Wehler saw history as a social science and contends that social developments are frequently more important than politics. [6] In his view, history is a "critical social science" that must examine both the "temporal structures" of a society and encourage a "freer critical awareness of society". [10] Wehler advocated an approach he calls Historische Sozialwissenschaft (historical social science), which integrates elements of history, sociology, economics and anthropology to study in a holistic fashion long-term social changes in a society [13] In Wehler's view, Germany between 1871 and 1945 was dominated by a social structure that retarded modernization in some areas but allowed it in others. [6] For Wehler, Germany's defeat in 1945 finally smashed the "premodern" social structure and allowed Germany become a normal "Western" country. [6]

Wehler was a leading critic of what he saw as efforts by reactionary historians to whitewash German history. [14] He played an important part in the Historikerstreit (historians' dispute) of the 1980s. The debate began after an article by the philosopher Ernst Nolte was published in the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on June 6 of 1986. In his article, Nolte claimed that there was a causal connection between the Gulag and Nazi extermination camps, the previous having supposedly affected the latter, which he called an überschießende Reaktion ("overshooting reaction"). That infuriated many (mainly left wing) intellectuals, such as Wehler and the philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who strongly rejected Nolte's thesis and presented a case for seeing the crimes of Nazi Germany as uniquely evil, which Nolte's defenders claimed that Nolte had never disputed in the first place.


Wehler was ferocious in his criticism of Nolte and wrote several articles and books, which Wehler himself admitted to be polemical attacks on Nolte. In his 1988 book on the Historikerstreit, Entsorgung der deutschen Vergangenheit?: ein polemischer Essay zum "Historikerstreit" (Exoneration of the German Past?: A Polemical Essay about the 'Historikerstreit'), Wehler criticised every aspect of Nolte's views and called the Historikerstreit a "political struggle" for the historical understanding of the German past between "a cartel devoted to repressing and excusing" the memory of the Nazi years, of which Nolte was the chief member, against "the representatives of a liberal-democratic politics, of an enlightened, self-critical position, of a rationality which is critical of ideology". [15]

Besides Nolte, Wehler also attacked the work of Michael Stürmer as "a strident declaration of war against a key element of the consensus upon which the socio-political life of this second republic has rested heretofore" [16] During the Historikerstreit, Wehler was one of the few historians to endorse Jürgen Habermas's method of attacking Andreas Hillgruber by creating a sentence about "tested senior officials in Nazi Party in the East" out of a long sentence in which Hillgruber had said no such thing on the grounds that it was a secondary issue of no real importance. [17]

The British historian Richard J. Evans, normally a fierce critic of Hillgruber, felt that Habermas and Wehler had gone too far in attacking Hillgruber with the line about "tested senior officials". [17]

In a 1989 essay, the American historian Jerry Muller criticised Wehler as a "leading Left-Liberal historian" who used the Historikerstreit to smear neoconservatives unjustly by the Nazi tag [18] Muller went on to write of the "interesting peculiarity of the political culture of German Left-liberal intellectuals" such as Wehler, who referred to Stalinist repression in the Soviet Union as "the excesses of the Russian Civil War" and argued that there was no comparison between Soviet and German history. [19] Instead, Wehler suggested that the only valid comparisons were between the history of Germany and that of other Western nations. [19]

Muller criticised Wehler for his lack of interest in Soviet history and hos unwillingness to engage in a comparative history between Eastern and Western nations, instead of just Western nations. [19]

Along somewhat-similar lines to the stance that he had taken during the Historikerstreit, Wehler in September 1990 strongly condemned a newspaper opinion piece by Harold James, who suggested national legends and myths were needed to sustain national identity. [20]

Wehler's work has been criticized. From the right, Otto Pflanze claimed that Wehler's use of such terms as "Bonapartism", "social imperialism", "negative integration" and Sammlungspolitik ("the politics of rallying together") went beyond mere heuristic devices and instead become a form of historical fiction. [21] The German conservative historian Thomas Nipperdey has argued that Wehler presented German elites as more united than they were, focused too much on forces from above and too little on forces from below in 19th-century German society and presented too stark of a contrast between the forces of order and stabilization and the forces of democracy with no explanation for the German Empire's relative stability. [21] Nipperdey thinks that Wehler failed to explain how the Weimar Republic occurred since Wehler considered that prior to 1918, the forces of authoritarianism were so strong and those of democracy so weak. [21] In a 1975 book review of Wehler's Das Deutsche Kaiserreich, Nipperdey concluded that a proper history of the German Empire period must be written by placing German history in a comparative European and trans-Atlantic perspective, which might allow the end of "our fixation on the struggle with our great-grandfathers". [21]

From the left, Wehler has been criticized by two British Marxist historians, David Blackbourn and Geoff Eley. Their 1980 book Mythen deutscher Geschichtsschreibung (translated into English in 1984 as The Peculiarities of German History) rejected the entire concept of the Sonderweg as a flawed construct supported by "a curious mixture of idealistic analysis and vulgar materialism", which led to an "exaggerated linear continuity between the nineteenth century and the 1930s". [22] In Blackbourn and Eley's view, there was no Sonderweg, and it is ahistorical to ask why Germany did not become Britain for the simple reasons that Germany is Germany and Britain is Britain. [22] Moreover, Eley and Blackbourn argued that after 1890, there was a tendency towards greater democratization in German society with the growth of civil society, as reflected in the growth of trade unions and a more-or-less free press. [22]

In addition, Eley contends that there were three flaws in Wehler's theory of social imperialism. The first is that Wehler credited leaders such as Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz and Prince Bernhard von Bülow with a greater degree of vision than they really had. [23] The second was that many of the right-wing pressure groups who advocated an imperialist policy for Germany were not government creations and often even demanded policies that were far more aggressive than those that the government wanted to undertake. [24] The third was that many of the groups that advocated imperialism demanded a policy of political and social reform at home to complement imperialism abroad. [24] Eley argued that thinking about social imperialism requires a broader picture with an interaction between above and below and a wider view of the relationship between imperialism abroad and domestic politics. [24]

During the "Goldhagen Controversy" of 1996, Wehler was a leading critic of Daniel Goldhagen, especially in regards to the latter's claims in his book Hitler's Willing Executioners about an alleged culture of murderous German "eliminationist anti-Semitism". However, Wehler was more sympathetic towards Goldhagen's claims on the motives of Holocaust perpetrators. [25] The Canadian historian Fred Kautz called Wehler an anti-Semite for his attacks on Goldhagen. [26] Kautz wrote "He [Wehler] doesn't dare say it openly that he thinks Goldhagen is incapable of writing about the Holocaust because he is a Jew. It's flabbergasting what perverse ideas are dreamt up in the studies of German professors, where according to an ancient legend, one seeks the truth unperturbed, sine ira et studio ('with diligence and without anger'): the victims of history should not be allowed to write their own history!" [27]

In 2000, Wehler became the eighth German historian to be inducted as an honorary member of the American Historical Association. Wehler accepted with some reluctance as previous German historians who had become honorary members included Leopold von Ranke, Gerhard Ritter and Friedrich Meinecke.

In a 2006 interview, Wehler supported the imprisonment of David Irving for Holocaust denial in Austria: "The denial of such an unimaginable murder of millions, one third of whom were children under the age of 14, cannot simply be accepted as something protected by the freedom of speech". [28] In his final years, Wehler had been a leading critic of Turkey's possible accession to the European Union.


Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics

It is increasingly common for social scientists to describe political processes as “path dependent.” The concept, however, is often employed without careful elaboration. This article conceptualizes path dependence as a social process grounded in a dynamic of “increasing returns.” Reviewing recent literature in economics and suggesting extensions to the world of politics, the article demonstrates that increasing returns processes are likely to be prevalent, and that good analytical foundations exist for exploring their causes and consequences. The investigation of increasing returns can provide a more rigorous framework for developing some of the key claims of recent scholarship in historical institutionalism: Specific patterns of timing and sequence matter a wide range of social outcomes may be possible large consequences may result from relatively small or contingent events particular courses of action, once introduced, can be almost impossible to reverse and consequently, political development is punctuated by critical moments or junctures that shape the basic contours of social life.


Officeholding and Local Politics in Early Modern Wales: A Study of the Salesburys of Rhug and Bachymbyd, c. 1536�

Published by the University of Wales Press since its inception in 1960, The Welsh History Review / Cylchgrawn Hanes Cymru is the most authoritative journal in its field. This twice-yearly journal is committed to publishing research on Welsh history, from medieval to modern. The internationally-renowned editorial board includes scholars from universities in Wales, the UK, Europe and the United States, whose collective breadth of knowledge contributes to a diverse range of cultural, social, political and economic history.

Cyhoeddwyd The Welsh History Review / Cylchgrawn Hanes Cymru gan Wasg Prifysgol Cymru ers sefydlu'r cyfnodolyn yn 1960. Hwn yw'r cyfnodolyn mwyaf awdurdodol yn ei faes, a'i brif hanfod yw arddangos amrywiaeth eang o feysydd ymchwil ym maes hanes Cymru, o'r canoloesol hyd at y modern. Ar y bwrdd golygyddol, ceir ysgolheigion o brifysgolion Cymru, y Deyrnas Unedig, Ewrop a'r Unol Daleithiau. Adlewyrchir arbenigeddau'r bwrdd yng nghynnwys y cyfnodolyn, sydd yn ymdrin â hanes diwylliannol, cymdeithasol, gwleidyddol ac economaidd.


Watch the video: Why?!?!?.. The Girl From the Other Side, Volume 10 by Nagabe