Search results

This chapter traces the history of global crime governance from the final decades of the nineteenth century to today, with particular attention paid to the United Nations and its crime programme after World War II. It highlights significant changes to the structure and mandate of the UN crime programme over the last 70 years and how UN agencies have helped shape the international crime policy agenda and its focus on development. The chapter then illustrates how vestiges of prevailing beliefs about development and crime and the global political economy that gave rise to them continue to influence the work of the UN system and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) today. In this regard, our analysis highlights some institutional and structural challenges inherent to containing the ‘dark side of globalisation’ together with the ways in which the UN's efforts to do so privilege the interests and understandings of Northern countries. We conclude that these power asymmetries represent an obstacle to the UN's custodianship of criminological targets that feature in the SDGs, but stop short of suggesting that the governance of the crime–development nexus should be viewed as a coherent, neo-colonial project given the institutional weaknesses within the UN system, the ‘Rise of the South’ and the potential for civil society to contest its priorities and agendas.

Conventional wisdom has it that policymakers rationally approach an ongoing or potential problem, carefully consider the reasons for the problem, and then sensibly debate the information and research on this problem. The final stage of this ideal vision of the educational policymaking process is that the policymakers decide how to solve specific problems based on their consideration of all of the relevant data and possible options (Vickers, 1994). This is rarely, if ever, the case.

Neoliberal globalization processes have created the conditions for the differential incorporation of men and women around the globe (Castles & Miller, 2009; Toro-Morn & Alicea, 2004). Indeed, this has been called the age of global migrations. People are on the move sometimes by their own choice, but most frequently pushed by forces beyond their control. Modern nation-states occupy a curious place in this process as it has traditionally managed and restricted the conditions and terms of entrance. This has prevented groups from entering under legitimate conditions creating migration flows of undocumented peoples. The treatment of refugees by modern nation-states in the global North has been problematic at best, neglectful and criminal at worst. In keeping with the goals of this volume, this chapter examines the rhetoric of one modern nation-state – the United States – in implementing border controls and immigration policies. Nation-states have always sought to control borders and regulate flow of people, but the current era offers some moments that demonstrate the contradictions embedded in the neoliberal regimes for modern, nation-states. In this paper, the authors are attentive to current immigration policies to expose the inconsistencies and tensions. The nation-state with its desire to enforce borders and social controls creates a humanitarian crisis unseen in modern history. The authors propose that modern nation-states in the era of global migrations cannot escape the contradictions engendered by neoliberal globalization.

Labor productivity always plays an important part in the growth of manufacturing sector of any nation, and certainly, in the growth of GDP as well. Now, the relationship between these three variables has been of interest to the researchers because few nations have experienced labor productivity–led economic growth, whereas for others it has been the other way round. In this chapter we have studied the relationship between labor productivity, manufacturing output, and growth of GDP, for 25 major economies across the globe, covering the period 2000–2015, with the help of simultaneous equation system for individual nations as well as panel data analysis, covering all the nations together. Study of this relationship has, hardly, been done before which is our prime motivation behind the study. Our findings suggest that in most of the nations, these variables have significant impact on one another but there are exceptions as well. Apart from that, there are variables like energy consumption, health status, life expectancy, foreign direct investment, etc., which are significant in influencing these variables. So, policy measure suggests that importance should be given not only on labor productivity or output of manufacturing sector but also on factors that can influence these variables.

The fight between two nations on each other’s exportable on the basis of tariff is known as tariff war. Although an economic policy, very ­often ­motivated by nationalism and politics, a nation imposes tariff on the ­exports of another nation which, in retaliation, again imposes tariff on the exports of its trading partner. The prime cause of such war is certainly to enhance employment opportunities in the home nation. But politics and nationalism provoke the opposite nation to follow the same policy. Effects of such tariff war, whether beneficial or harmful, are yet to be seen. In this context, we have adopted a general equilibrium model to illustrate the probable effect of the above-stated trade war in a structure consisting both H–O nugget and export sector dualism. The effect of imposition of tariff on multinational corporation (MNC) that has its own origin nation and production activities in other nation as well where it faces the war of tariff is considered. But it gets relief in the form of tax reduction in its origin nation. Under such a scenario, the study has shown the effect of tariff in the presence of full employment in the economy as well as in the presence of unemployment. It is seen that the MNC will continue its production procedure in both nations and enjoy profit, under some conditions. Further, in the presence of unemployment it is seen that if rate of tax on the MNC rises, unemployment may fall and welfare can increase under certain conditions.

The significance of literature in nation-building in two “second generation” nations, Germany and Norway, is discussed. In both countries a specific national literature was constituted parallel to the political institutions during the latter half of the 19th century. Yet there are clear differences in political effects in the two cases. In Norway, the struggle for national independence up to 1905 entailed a significant democratization of society. Germany, in the wake of the revolution of 1848, developed into a politically authoritarian regime, fully established under Prussian leadership in 1871.

These processes are mirrored in the position of literature. In Norway, where artistic traditions were absent, the national literature was a product of the 19th century, and emerged in close connection to ongoing political debates. In Germany, the Weimar heritage had gained classical status during the 1850s. Thus, the problem was foremost that of redefining the spiritual heritage to fit the history of the German Reich.

A related difference is found in the diffusion of literature through its most important channel – the school system. Norway developed a modern, uniform school, where the nation’s new literature was accorded a central place. In Germany, a more class-based school system was cemented, and the idea of diffusing the cultural heritage to the population at large held a weak position.

Along with these institutional factors, the development of national literatures in the two countries is seen in the light of regional specificities, constellations of literary genres with high and low prestige, and the social and political position of writers.