No description available.

This paper looks to examine how the Dayton Peace Agreement (1995) was meant to create a stable, unified Bosnia and Herzegovina versus what was actually achieved. The institutional rules of Dayton were designed to check and balance the three ethnic groups, yet the country is defined by political division rather than cooperation. The international community, prescribed by Dayton to oversee and enforce Bosnia’s transition, has supported a flawed institutional design. The theories of consociationalism, centripetalism, and the prevalence of the ethno-territorial principle are used to explain how Dayton has failed in facilitating cooperation and moderation. The impact of the prolonged, involved role of the High Representative and the European Court of Human Right's 2009 case, Sejdić and Finci, are used as analysis. I argue that Dayton’s institutional design has allowed ethnic division to define BiH's political system and the prolonged intervention of the High Representative has removed incentive for local elites to cooperate.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina mobile phone numbers can in some way reflect ethnicity. This study will describe how and why urban youth in Sarajevo, in their own stated reality motivate and perceive selection of mobile phone companies and mobile phone numbers in Bosnia and Herzegovina according to their ethnic group. The research questions are: How do urban youth in Sarajevo reason when they choose mobile phone companies? How do urban youth in Sarajevo perceive and understand consequences of the divide of mobile phone companies and numbers in Bosnia and Herzegovina? To what extent can mobile phone numbers be perceived as an ethnic marker? By using qualitative interviews the results of the study is presented. Mobile phone numbers can serve as an ethnic marker, but it is not used by urban youth in Sarajevo to distinguish ethnicity. Finally, the thesis argues that an ethnic structure among mobile phone companies are discovered but even in this rigid ethnic structure people choose mobile phone companies of economic reasons rather than of ethnic implications.

This study aims to understand the Kenyan cross-party parliamentary women’s caucus success at representing women substantively despite ethnic division. The Kenyan case highlights a paradox: the cross-party parliamentary women’s caucus is successful in a country where politics is shaped by ethnic division, which contradicts existing theories suggesting that the many layers of identity politics would make it difficult for the members to cooperate on a common women’s agenda. The material was collected during ten weeks in Nairobi through interviews with women MPs within the caucus and through observation of meetings, events, and the daily work of the caucus. The findings suggest that women’s issues are perceived as non-political, and non-controversial, which makes it possible for the members to cooperate on a common women’s agenda. Kenya seems to be in an initial stage of gender mainstreaming where the caucus’s members cooperate on women’s fundamental rights, on which they can all agree. It is reasonable to believe that the political parties will develop ideological differences concerning women’s issues as Kenya achieves a certain level of gender equality. The cross-party parliamentary women’s caucus will, according to the findings, be essential to improve the substantive representation of women in the Parliament.

This is a study of an ethnic hierarchical division of labor on Iföverken in the south of Sweden between 1895-1930. The study aims to see if migrants got different kind of profession at Iföverken and if there were in fact ethnic hierarchical distribution of work. It also aims to see if the pattern of ethnic hierarchical division of labor was different before and after the First World War. Also, the study aims to see in what regard these labor migrants became members of the local union, division 227. By studying if labor migrants got different kind of professions using the concept of class in a structuralist perspective, hierarchical positions become visible. Using moving in and out records that the priests wrote as migrants arrived and member list of the union as the main sources, the study shows that there existed a pattern of ethnic hierarchical division of labor. The results show that migrants from regions with Slavic population got the most unskilled work while migrants from regions with German population made most of the professional and higher valued workforce. There where some migrants that became active members of the union division 227, consequently it can be argued that these migrants where a part of a collective movement and class struggle.

In the 1880s, capitalism as a social and economic system integrated new geographic areas of the American continent. The construction of the Duluth & Iron Range Railroad (D&IR), financed by a group of Philadelphia investors led by Charlemagne Tower and later owned by the US Steel was part of this emerging political economy based on the exploitation of human and material resources. Migrant labor was in demand as it came cheap and, generally, floated between various construction-sites on the “frontier” of capitalism. The Swedish immigrants were one part of this group of “floaters” during the late 1800s and made up a significant part of the force that constructed and worked on the D&IR between the 1880s and the 1920s. This book deals with power relations between groups based on class and ethnic differences by analyzing the relationship between the Anglo-American bourgeois establishment and the Swedish and other immigrant workers and their children on the D&IR and in the railroad town of Two Harbors, Minnesota. The Anglo-American bourgeois hegemony in Minnesota, to a large extent, dictated the conditions under which Swedish immigrants and others toiled and were allowed access to American society. I have therefore analyzed the structural subordination and gradual integration of workers and, in particular, immigrant workers, in an emerging class society. The book also deals with the political and the cultural opposition to Anglo-American bourgeois hegemony that emerged in Two Harbors and that constructed a radical public sphere during the 1910s. In this process, new group identities based on class and ethnicity emerged in the working class neighborhoods in the wake of the capitalist expansion and exploitation, and as a result of worker agency. Building on traditions of political insurgency an alliance of immigrant workers, particularly Swedes, Anglo skilled workers and parts of the local petty bourgeoisie rose to a position of political and cultural power in the local community. This coalition was held together by the language of class that became the basis of a local multi-ethnic working class identity laying claim to its own version of Americanism. The period of preparedness leading up to the Great War, the war itself, and its aftermath, produced a reaction from the Anglo American bourgeoisie which resulted in a profound change in the public sphere as a coalition between “meliorist middle class reformers”, represented primarily by the YMCA and local church leaders and the D&IR and its program of welfare capitalism launched a broad program to counter socialism locally, and to forge new social bonds that would cut across class lines and ethnic boundaries. By this process, the ethnic working class in Two Harbors was offered entry into American society by acquiring citizenship and by their inclusion in a broader civic community undifferentiated by class. But this could only be realized by the workers’ adoption of an Anglo-American national identity based on identification with corporate interests, a new local solidarity that cut across class lines and a white racial identity that diminished the significance of ethnic boundaries. By these means the Swedish immigrants, or at least a portion of them, became Americans on terms established by the D&IR and its class allies.

近幾年來，在國際場合或在我國政治運作中，「族群融和」議題常被提出做為討論。觀察世界各國族群分化的狀況，我們發現社會存在族群分化問題會造成資源使用的不效率、經濟成長緩慢、政府政策效能低落等。其中，就公共政策來看，主要問題為公共財提供的數量及型態，會產生扭曲的現象。Bridgman（2004）利用租稅制度的選擇，解釋在族群互動下，公共財總量提供的問題。該文提出，只要允許族群有政策工具的選擇空間，則優勢族群必會剝奪其他族群資源以追求自身利益最大，導致公共財提供的扭曲與不效率，造成社會分化與公共財之間的問題。 本文以Bridgman（2004）文章為基礎，將「不同族群對公共財有不同的偏好反應」的因子，納入基本模型中。利用「公共財型態選擇機制」顯示不同族群面對相同公共財數量時，主觀的偏好反應在公共財效用差異上，使模型更臻完整。本文利用兩階段賽局方式，分別求取公共財型態均衡解與公共財數量及租稅政策的均衡解。透過均衡解的分析可發現，當族群對公共財型態有偏好差異時，公共財數量受到社會分化程度的衝擊愈大，亦即數量減少幅度較Bridgman（2004）模型結果更大，族群支付租稅的意願更低。而且，透過均衡解也可發現，當族群對公共財型態存在偏好差異，會更進一步的使公共財數量下降。此乃因族群偏好的差異透過族群間不公平的制度對待，加深了社會分化程度，更進一步減少公共財提供與資源使用效率。故政府制定相關政策時，應將族群問題納入考量，以期有更完善、公平的族群融和、社會穩定的發展。