No description available.

Thesis (M.A.)--Creighton University, 2009. / Bluebrary (DSpace). Title from title screen (viewed Mar. 11, 2010). Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 51-53).

The contemporary decentralization trend in a number of South European states has been an object of scientific research on numerous occasions. By focusing on the analysis and interpretation of decentralization in Greece, in the post-dictatorial period (1974-1989), a country on which no previous similar research has been undertaken, this study broadens the research area and contributes to the wider debate about the nature of "Central-Local Relations". The analysis of centralization and decentralization tendencies in the Modern Greek State, of the role of Greek local government in politics and public administration and the overview of the related institutional reforms provide the background of the research and show the limitations of approaches which focus on the institutional characteristics in explaining policy changes. An inter-organizational framework of analysis is adopted to explain the nature, timing and evolution of the decentralization reforms. Decentralization is seen as the product of relationships between organizations, entailing the redistribution of resources and the change of rules governing the interactions between central and local government. The politics of decentralization are thus examined under the framework of the relations of political parties, viewed as organizations, with local government. The varying degree of dependence on local government organizations, of political parties in opposition and in government is investigated in the light of the internal dynamics of the party organizations and the scope and intensity of party competition in the related issues. Furthermore, it is shown that these processes of intra and inter-organizational change in political parties have significantly influenced the contents of decentralization policies, their timing and introduction and the growing consensus on decentralization during the period under examination. Intergovernmental relations is the framework of analysis which further interprets the policy process of decentralization. The complex set of power-dependence relationships between central government, the different organizations of the state apparatus and local government explain the formulation and implementation of the decentralization reforms. Two powerful and contradictory influences are examined: those of the bureaucracy tending to hinder and delay the implementation of reforms affecting its power; and those of the professionals within or at the side of government and administration, tending to produce the fragmentation of both central and local government by birth and development of new types of organizations, which by pass bureaucratic routes of communication and exchange. The synthesis of the above-mentioned influences has caused significant alterations in the pattern of intergovernmental relations, which will in turn affect the further process of decentralization in Greece.

Terrorism and civil war have each been studied heavily by scholars of non-state political violence; however, the two have typically been kept analytically distinct. Broadly, this project argues for treating these varying types of violence as more similar than different. While terrorism and civil war are not the same thing, they do exhibit powerful similarities both conceptually and empirically. By treating terrorism and civil war as distinct, scholars have missed out on many new insights gained from a more unified approach to non-state violence.Broadly, this project begins with the basic assumption that civil war and terrorism are not types of violence; rather, they are types of politics. Groups use terrorism and engage in civil war when those tools are available and useful, given the goals of the group. For violent groups, terrorism is versatile tool that can be used in many environments. Civil wars, while larger and rarer, are logically identical; if a group grows to be sufficiently large and powerful, and it is otherwise unable to change policy some other way, a civil war is a natural and unsurprising event.Studying violence by segmenting it into such distinct types has left scholars with disjointed explanations and no ability to bring together small-scale and large-scale events - like terrorism and civil war. The purpose of this project is to act as an initial step by suggesting a framework where varying types of non-state violence can simultaneously exist.In addition to the theoretical contributions of Part 1, the project demonstrates powerful new insights that can be realized by approaching non-state violence in a more unified manner. Part 2 provides two empirical chapters demonstrating insights from approaching terrorism and civil war together. Chapter 4 shows that terrorism data can be used as a temporally specific predictor of civil war onset. Next, Chapter 5 frames international terrorism as a transnational outcome of civil wars. Ultimately, much can be learned from treating non-state violence in a more unified manner.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

<p>How does competition and rivalry within alliances affect outcomes and processes in civil wars? Towards addressing this inquiry, this dissertation presents a formal theory of alliance formation that takes into account both internal and external threats. The theory, presented in Chapter 2, focuses on how allying parties make decisions regarding resource mobilization for conflictual purposes, in the presence of both internal and external hazards. The model indicates that intra-coalition division should serve not only as a source of instability but also as a wellspring of strength for aligning militant groups. This leads to a peculiar result, whereby the internal factors enabling groups to overcome the problem of collective action may also contribute to the "conflict trap." Testable implications are derived and examined empirically via a new dataset on alliances between rebel groups during civil wars from 1944 to 2001. The series of logistical models in Chapter 3 indicates that alliances marked by rivalry and competition are indeed more likely to lead to rebel victories. Yet, the analysis also demonstrates that these types of arrangements are also significant predictors of war recurrence. The latter result holds irrespective of how the original conflicts terminate. Additionally, Chapter 4 of this dissertation presents a comparative analysis between two cases of civil war marked by competitive alliances. In addition to other factors, the cases suggest the relative size of alliance members, the influence external actors, and the presence of electoral institutions may either exacerbate or mitigate competition issues within alliances.</p> / Dissertation

No description available.

Theses (M.A.)--Marshall University, 2006. / Title from document title page. Includes abstract. Document formatted into pages: contains vii, 55 p. Bibliography: p. 53-55.