Suchergebnisse

Considers the claim that globalization represents a sort of empire, positing the notion of "network power" to clarify how the globalization dynamic reflects a form of domination. Following an explanation of formal & informal empire, the idea of network power is explained in terms of the collective structures & processes associated with globalization. The mechanism of network power comprises the role of standards in setting human action, & it functions through formal consent or choice rather than via direct force. In this way, network power changes choice outcomes, hence, the choices individuals would make. Intrinsic & extrinsic reasons for adopting a standard are distinguished to shed light on how such choices become essentially coerced. The network power of a dominant standard transforms the "freedom to choose freely" into the "freedom to choose" by eradicating alternative standards; ie, this systematic power leads to unfree choices. The WTO is used as an example to illustrate this dynamic, shedding light on the need to explore the cost of transition & identity loss amid globalization. Analysis turns briefly to the nature of openness in the boundary properties of standards, focusing on openness to new entrants (openness), parallel systems (compatibility), & revision (malleability). Claiming globalization is imperial centers on the fact that (1) many critical choices seem already decided by virtue of globalization & (2) certain privileged states benefit from or lose no freedom because of globalization. J. Zendejas

This article makes a case that collaborative planning is becoming more important, in great part, because it can result in network power. Network power is particularly critical in contemporary conditions where traditionally powerful players are unable to accomplish their objectives alone. Consensus building and other forms of collaborative planning are increasingly in use today as ways of achieving policy results in an era distinguished by rapid change, social and political fragmentation, global interdependence, and conflicting values. The article makes the case that network power can be thought of as a flow that can be partially guided by planners and others, but it is a form of power in which participants all share. It comes into being most effectively, but also paradoxically, when three conditions govern the relationship of agents in a collaborative network: diversity, interdependence, and authentic dialogue (DIAD). When these conditions are met, the participants in the network can develop adaptive innovations that were not apparent or even open to them as individual agents. Like a complex adaptive system, the DIAD network as a whole is more capable of learning and adaptation in the face of fragmentation and rapid change than a set of disconnected agents. Shared meanings emerge from the dialogue and participants can develop identities that link them together. As a result, they are enabled to act both independently and cooperatively for mutual benefit without central direction. Planners have many roles in such networks, as designers and supporters of dialogues creating and maintaining linkages, as direct participants in them, as technical analysts informing them, as facilitators and mediators and as nodes connecting various smaller networks. Planning education needs to incorporate new subject matter to better prepare planners for these roles.

Maull reviews 'Network Power: Japan in Asia' edited by Peter J. Katzenstein and Takashi Shiraishi.

Against the celebratory view of globalization comes the charge that globalization represents a kind of empire. But this charge requires a framework in which we can identify the power at work in apparently voluntary processes, such as learning English or joining the World Trade Organization. I advance a concept of "network power" to explain the dynamic that drives many key aspects of globalization. A network is united via a standard, which is the shared norm or convention that enables coordination among its users, such as a language that allows communication among its speakers. A widely used standard is more valuable than a less used one, simply because it governs access to a larger network of people. The idea of network power generalizes this fact to describe globalization as the rise to global dominance of standards that have achieved critical mass in language, high technology, trade, law, and many other areas. It also characterizes the rise to dominance of a successful standard as involving a form of power. While these new standards allow for global coordination, they also eclipse local standards, rendering them unviable to the extent that they prove incompatible with dominant ones. Therefore many of the choices driving globalization are only formally free and, in fact, are constrained because the network power of a dominant standard makes it the only effectively available option. It is this dynamic that generates much of the resentment against globalization and the criticism that it reflects a new imperialism.

This study argues that a state's power is best conceptualized by considering how a state interacts with all other states in different networks within the international system. This social network explanation for national power is applied to militarized conflicts, one of the most widely studied empirical phenomena in international relations, focusing on their power explanations. The empirical analysis of militarized conflicts at the dyadic level produces findings that strongly support power preponderance theory over balance of power theory. The evidence from nonparametric model discrimination statistics and information criteria measures also shows that our conflict models with new social network power measures have greater explanatory power than or statistically outperform models relying on attributional power measures, such as Correlates of War index and Gross National Product (GNP). [Reprinted by permission; copyright Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society/Sage Publications Inc.]

This article analyzes how the globalization of human rights discourse enables victims of rights violations to gain presence and influence on a global stage through the concept of network power. This article argues against criticisms of human rights discourse as another form of Western cultural imperialism. This article uses the case of the Rwandan Paul Rusesabagina, especially his representations in Philip Gourevitch's We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families: Stories from Rwanda, Terry George's film Hotel Rwanda, and Rusesabagina's autobiography An Ordinary Man to illustrate this point. Adapted from the source document.

This article analyzes how the globalization of human rights discourse enables victims of rights violations to gain presence and influence on a global stage through the concept of network power. This article argues against criticisms of human rights discourse as another form of Western cultural imperialism. This article uses the case of the Rwandan Paul Rusesabagina, especially his representations in Philip Gourevitch's We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families: Stories from Rwanda , Terry George's film Hotel Rwanda , and Rusesabagina's autobiography An Ordinary Man to illustrate this point.

This study argues that a state's power is best conceptualized by considering how a state interacts with all other states in different networks within the international system. This social network explanation for national power is applied to militarized conflicts, one of the most widely studied empirical phenomena in international relations, focusing on their power explanations. The empirical analysis of militarized conflicts at the dyadic level produces findings that strongly support power preponderance theory over balance of power theory. The evidence from nonparametric model discrimination statistics and information criteria measures also shows that our conflict models with new social network power measures have greater explanatory power than or statistically outperform models relying on attributional power measures, such as Correlates of War index and Gross National Product (GNP).

EVEN IF ONE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF NETWORK MONOPSONY POWER, AND EVEN IF IN ADDITION ONE BELIEVES THAT THE US NETWORKS ARE LARGELY UNABLE TO COOPERATE IN SETTING QUALITY LEVELS AND ADVERTISING PRICES, THERE STILL REMAINS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN OVER THEIR FEWNESS. AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE STRUCTURE OF NETWORKS POLICIES TO PREVENT PERVERSE MARKET POWER.

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Preface -- List of Contributors -- Introduction: Asian Regionalism in Comparative Perspective / Katzenstein, Peter J. -- I. THE REGIONAL SETTING -- 1. Transpacific Torii: Japan and the Emerging Asian Regionalism / Pempel, T. J. -- 2. Asianism's Ambivalent Legacy / Koschmann, J. Victor -- II. FROM PAST TO FUTURE -- 3. The Intra-regional System in East Asia in Modern Times / Hamashita, Takeshi -- 4. Japan and Northeast Asia into the Twenty-first Century / Cumings, Bruce -- 5. Japan and Southeast Asia / Shiraishi, Takashi -- III. REGIONAL ISSUES: ECONOMY AND CULTURE -- 6. Japan in East Asia: Institutions and Regional Leadership / Doner, Richard F. -- 7. Japan's Soft Power: Doraemon Goes Overseas / Shiraishi, Saya S. -- IV. WHAT KIND OF ASIA? -- 8. Japan's National Security and Asia-Pacific's Regional Institutions in the Post-Cold War Era / Yamakage, Susumu -- 9. China, Japan, and the Regional Political Economy of East Asia, 1945-1995 / Selden, Mark -- Conclusion: Regions in World Politics, Japan and Asia- Germany in Europe / Katzenstein, Peter J. / Shiraishi, Takashi -- Index