Suchergebnisse

The rapid expansion of international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) numbers in the last half-century is usually explained to be a result of decolonization, globalization, and/or increase in the number of global issues. One additional hypothesis, which has not been discussed in the political science literature, is suggested by the demographic-structural theory. According to this hypothesis, the acceleration in INGO numbers was caused by the post-war baby boom and a crisis in the credential system. This study finds that cyclical increases in INGO numbers were preceded by expansions in the 30–39 cohort. Interestingly, the mean age of leaders across 12 international governmental institutions also oscillated, but with a lag (thus correlated with expansions of the 55–64 cohort). Thus evidence supports the idea that demographic-structural mechanisms contributed to the surge in INGO numbers during the last 50 years as a by-product of intraelite competition.

Local self-government has so long prevailed in English constitutional practice, and in recent times has been so generously extended to colonies and dominions, that it might seem an anomaly for Home Rule to be ardently desired in Ireland, yet bitterly contested and thus far withheld. Many favorable generally to the idea of autonomy without special reference to the condition of Ireland have believed this to result from a stubborn obstinacy and blind perverseness, perpetuating in tragic fashion a tragedy of olden times. But it might be suspected that such reluctance arose in part from circumstances of a great while ago, which continue or have bequeathed consequences not to be neglected; and an examination of the controversial literature which appeared just before the war reveals many objections which, in so far as they were actual and honestly held, were undoubtedly valid and potent. Certainly a great many people believed that Home Rule was not only unnecessary for the interests of Ireland, and really to the detriment of the Irish people, but that whatever might be the results with respect to that country, without doubt self-government, so far as it tended to separation and the erecting of an independent or hostile government, would be fatal to some of the largest interests of England and the British Empire.

In 1806 Prussia engaged in war with Napoleon. The swiftest of his triumphs followed. In two months the Prussians had surrendered their fortresses, and seen annihilated the greatness which Europe had failed to crush in the time of Frederick the Great. A period of humiliation followed, and for some years the people lived under the conqueror's yoke.Deliverance came when Napoleon, stretching too far his power, and arousing the spirit of peoples, was defeated by Europe in arms. The liberation which alone Prussia could not have accomplished, was yet wrought partly by herself, for deliverance was preceded by regeneration in which her military system was fundamentally reformed. But it may be that what remained after all as the principal heritage from these years was the abiding sense that Prussia had suffered from being weak, and that only through military strength could there be safety in the future.The expansion and greatness of Prussia left unfulfilled the old idea of a united Germany. Through the middle ages and down to this time Germany had remained disunited, and weak and despised because of it. The smallest states had now disappeared, but still there were larger ones, grouped under Austria in vague and shadowy empire. And the history of Germany in the half century which followed the downfall of Napoleon is a record of yearning and striving on the part of people filled with distant memories, and noble aspiration after that strength and union which had come to their neighbors and yet been denied to themselves.