Browse
Introduction, explaining chapters and the author’s questioning of the dominant academic interpretations of UK social enterprise policy development. Initial overview of themes throughout book, including other academic contributions’ undue reliance on North American and mainland European marketised structures, their neglect of previous UK indigenous structures and failure to synchronise voluntary, community and social enterprise developments, the political and economic significance of New Labour’s policy shift from co-operatives to social enterprise, the unreported role of academic and third sector policy entrepreneurs and the reality of social enterprise policy driven by third sector organisations themselves.
The ‘Donetsk People’s Republic’ is a self-proclaimed state in the Donbas region of Ukraine. The struggle for an independent Republic of Donetsk has resulted in significant bloodshed, particularly from 2014. Survey data suggests that most of the residents of the region would like their region to become part of Russia and the Donetsk People’s Republic relies heavily on Russian support. This chapter shows how governance decisions intended to achieve internal legitimacy in fact leave residents without a functional citizenship of either Ukraine or Russia. This means that they are effectively stateless, since citizenship of the Donetsk People’s Republic is not recognised beyond Donbas. The chapter traces what this means for individuals living in the region, and how it affects both their decision-making and their understanding of citizenship and identity. The case of the DPR highlights the powerful link between governance, statelessness, and citizenship. For established states, the inability to govern within a particular territory may contribute to statelessness. For self-proclaimed states, governance in pursuit of internal legitimacy may involve manipulation of citizenship policies, which enhances the risk of statelessness.
Contrary to celebrations of China’s ‘rise’ or ‘the rise of the rest’, imperialism of the rich countries is alive and well. China does not threaten the global dominance of the imperialist states and it cannot within the global capitalist system. In contemporary capitalism, domination over the most sophisticated parts within the overall labour process would be the only path to ‘catch up’ with the rich societies. However, imperialist monopoly capital dominates the highest aspects of the labour process, so that other, ‘non-monopoly’ capital must specialise in low-end and ordinary labour. This kernel within the international division of labour leads to the development of two poles – a pole of high-end labour and its opposite, a pole of low-end, ordinary labour. Capitalist producers and countries are divided on this basis into rich, monopoly and poor, non-monopoly capitals and countries. For large non-monopoly societies – that is, large ‘Third World’ states – the path to ‘catch-up’ is closed. The nature of Chinese and other Third World participation in the global division of labour does not prepare them to challenge imperialist monopoly. China’s rapid expansion of production has profoundly reshaped the world economy, however, this does not indicate China is catching up with imperialist countries. China has caught up with the other large Third World economies, like Brazil and Mexico, but these occupy an intermediate position within the international division of labour. They have a high level of development compared to poorer Third World societies, but far below that of the imperialist core societies.
Many contemporary violent conflicts involve armed non-state actors (ANSAs) as
conflict parties. Governments are often hesitant to enter informal talks and
negotiations with ANSAs, and yet in many violent conflicts such ‘talks’ are
initiated at some point. Engaging with ANSAs is considered risky. Talking
and negotiating usually imply gradual steps of recognising and legitimising
the counterpart. In successful cases, ANSAs can be transformed into
non-violent political parties and their legitimate goals eventually become
incorporated into state policy. But recognition can also backfire by
creating counterproductive precedents and new modes of exclusion in
politics. In unsuccessful cases, armed non-state actors might escalate the
violent struggle. At the same time, mis-recognition, which individuals or
collective actors experience as humiliation, disrespect or false
representations of their identity, can be seen as a major cause of political
resistance and escalation.
By conceptualising the (mis-/non-)recognition
of ANSAs, pointing to potential ambivalences and addressing its meaning for
conflict transformation, the introductory chapter provides the broader
analytical frame and contextualisation for the edited volume. It links the
concept of recognition as developed in international political theory to
research on ANSAs in peace and conflict studies. What forms of
(non-/mis-)recognition of armed non-state actors occur in violent conflicts?
Which risks and opportunities arise in processes of conflict transformation
when state actors recognise armed non-state actors or, conversely, deny them
recognition? The theoretical-conceptual considerations presented here draw
on examples from the case studies as discussed in the individual
contributions to the volume.
Lebanese Hezbollah is arguably the most powerful armed non-state actor
currently active. Founded as an Islamic resistance movement against Israeli
occupation in the 1970s and 1980s, Hezbollah is considered a terrorist
organisation by several Western states and, since 2016, by the Arab League
and the Gulf Cooperation Council. Since 2015, it is known to have been
involved in several armed conflicts in the Middle East, most importantly as
a supporter of the Assad regime in the Syrian civil war, but also as a
provider of military training for resistance groups in Iraq and
Yemen.
At the same time, however, Hezbollah representatives have been
part of all Lebanese governments since 2011 and they occupy a number of
seats in Parliament. Finally, Hezbollah is also a very active provider of
social and welfare services in the Lebanese South and the Beqaa.
For
all of the roles it takes, Hezbollah has often been described as a hybrid
organisation, which escapes established typologies of both Islamism and
terrorism. The chapter, based on the author’s field research in Lebanon,
seeks to explore and map the variety of recognition practices that revolve
around Hezbollah. It analyses what kind of recognition Hezbollah seeks from
different audiences, among them the Lebanese and transnational Shiite
community, the Lebanese people, competing political parties in Lebanon, and
Western and Middle Eastern states, as well as international organisations.
It traces how recognition-granters react to Hezbollah’s claims and what
consequences these parallel processes of recognition, non-recognition and
mis-recognition have on inner-Lebanese and regional conflict dynamics.
The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the ways in which the Islamic State
generates and upholds its message through what are termed recognition
orders, that is, complex sets of recognition by various actors for various
traits and reasons, as well as complex sets of claims for recognition
towards various actors as to what is to be recognised about the Islamic
State in which way. This means that any act of recognition, non- or
mis-recognition is part of a social relationship between those granting (or
denying) and those the act is directed towards. Consequently, recognition
and its others (non- and mis-recognition) are constituted
reciprocally.
Considerations are based on an examination of twenty-three
authoritative statements as well as a few texts and videos wherein the
Islamic State’s ideologues emphasised particular sets of traits the group
aspired to being recognised for as well as sets of actors from which the
group sought recognition. These sets of traits and their variation
correspond to the series of organisational stages the Islamic State
underwent before and after its proclamation as the Caliphate in 2014. The
chapter proposes two different sets of analytical questions, the answers to
which reveal the complex recognition regime of which the Islamic State is
part. The history of the Islamic State and its predecessor organisations is
shown to be highly volatile in terms of the content and scope of the
recognition it demands.
Chapter 2 focuses on how the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society (IAOS) disseminated co-operative societies and ideas through the rural countryside. At a national level the IAOS built up a broad social coalition that included nationalists and unionists, Catholics and Protestants, landlords and farmers, in its efforts to popularise agricultural co-operation. This alliance proved fragile and the interventions of Horace Plunkett, the co-operative movement’s leader, sometimes threatened to undo this hard work. The IAOS also promoted its mission at a local level through its staff of professional organisers. The second half of the chapter considers the crucial role played by these co-operative organisers in the successful establishment and continued development of co-operative societies throughout the countryside.
Civilising Rural Ireland examines how modern Ireland emerged out of the social and economic transformation prompted by the rural co-operative movement. The movement emerged in response to systemic economic problems that arose throughout the nineteenth century and coincided with a wide-ranging project of cultural nationalism. Within a short space of time the co-operative movement established a swathe of creameries, agricultural societies and credit societies, leading to a radical reorganisation of rural Ireland and helping to create a distinctive Irish political economy. The work of overlooked co-operative experts is critically examined for the first time and reinserted into the process of state development. The interventions of these organisers, intellectuals and farmers built up key institutions that shaped everyday life across rural communities. The movement weathered war and revolution, to become an indispensable part of an Irish state infrastructure after independence in 1922. The strained relationship and economic rivalry that developed between Irish and British co-operators is also explored in order to illuminate the changing relationship between Ireland and the United Kingdom from an economic perspective. Civilising Rural Ireland will appeal to a wide audience interested in modern Irish history and readers are introduced to an eclectic range of personalities who shared an interest in co-operation and whose actions possessed important consequences for the way Ireland developed. The creative use of local and national sources, many of which are examined for the first time, mean the book offers a new perspective on an important period in the making of modern Ireland.
Chapter 4 analyses how the co-operative movement adjusted to a new political and economic environment during the First World War. The movement’s ability to adapt to new circumstances highlighted its importance to the rural population. Increasingly, wartime food controls frustrated the co-operative movement’s attempt to reorganise rural society. The war provided an important watershed, which led to the Irish co-operative movement’s emphatic politicisation and a subsequent loss of confidence in the British state system. The movement emerged from the war critical of government economic intervention in Ireland and asserted its blueprint for social reorganisation with added urgency.
Chapter 6 examines the role of the co-operative movement in the socio-economic construction of the independent Irish Free State. Despite the constraints of an unsettled political atmosphere, achievements made by co-operators before independence were further secured in the postcolonial period as the movement worked with a new Irish political administrators. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s the co-operative movement continued to embed its network of societies across rural Ireland. Independent Irish governments utilised this network to promote agricultural development and set in place a series of economic policies that favoured the agricultural sector, and which remained in place until later in the twentieth century. Co-operative societies were relied upon to facilitate and deliver the state’s vision of a functioning Irish economy predicated on agriculture. Having established itself as a permanent fixture in the rural sphere, the IAOS and its network of co-operative societies exerted a highly influential presence in the independent Irish state that helped set the parameters of economic development going forward.