The Creation and Dissolution of the Multinational State: The Case of Yugoslavia

Abstract. The article draws on Randall Collins' interpretation of a Weberian sociology of legitimacy and the importance of geostrategy in explaining the contrasts between the creation and dissolution of Yugoslavia. The creation of Yugoslavia is interpreted as the outcome of the expansionist policy of the Serbian elite which was justified by the inclusion of all the ethnic Serbs into one state and made possible by the geostrategically weak positions of the Croatian and Slovenian elites. Different starting positions and motivations for unification led to a struggle among elites over the definition of the newly united state, particularly over the centralization–federalisation issue. The situation of communist Yugoslavia was a different one – the country was balancing between the ‘East’ and the ‘West’. This balance – which, along with the memories of the ‘liberation struggle’, was the main source of the legitimacy of the regime – was destroyed with the cessation of the cold war. The newly created situation had two important results. First, the potential threat from the communist east had disappeared. Second, Slovenia and Croatia were attracted to the idea of integration into western Europe. This situation was substantially different than in the period of the creation of the Yugoslav state, in which western Europe was perceived as a potential threat to the existence of Croatia and Slovenia. Now, the perception of threat came from the east – from the ‘unreformed’ Serbia. The attraction to the west was much weaker in Serbia, where the old communist power structure stayed intact. The new situation, and the political elites' perception of it, created the tension which finally destroyed the basis of the multinational state.     

Federalism: Money and politics

J. S. H. Hunter, Revenue Sharing in the Federal Republic of Germany, Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations, Research Monograph No. 2, ANU, 1973, pp. 116 + xi, $3.00.     

Federalism and the courts

Geoffrey Sawer: Australian Federalism in the Courts, Melbourne University Press, 1967, vii + 262 pp., $6.50.     

"New Governance" and Associative Pluralism: The Case of Drug Policy in Swiss Cities

Throughout the 1990s, hierarchical administrative governance structures have been replaced by self-governing networks for various motives, one of which is to improve the authenticity and democratic quality of public decisions. Thus, "new governance" has been praised for its propensity to provide a plurality of civil society organizations with access to the decision process. This article explores these claims based on the case of drug policy in Swiss cities. We show that self-governing networks indeed seem to have increased the involvement of civil society organizations in the policy process. However, we also find evidence that self-governing networks may in the longer run induce state control over civil society organizations, thus ultimately reducing associative pluralism. They do so either by imposing a policy paradigm or by excluding actors who do not comply with the dominant paradigm from the networks. We conclude by arguing that self-organizing networks should not be dismissed, given that former hierarchical bureaucratic approaches to drug-related problems have failed even worse. Rather, their long-term effects should be subject to further examination aimed at developing adequate responses to their shortcomings.     

Interpreting the Bill of Rights and the Nature of Federalism: Barron v. City of Baltimore

In 1833, a mere forty-five years after the Constitution of the United States took effect, the young republic was striving to establish the form its constitutional government would take. For while the Constitution and its first ten amendments had set forth many principles regarding the rights of individual citizens with respect to the actions of their government, the precise nature of these relations would be determined in large part by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall.     

Islam: Issues of Political Authority and Pluralism

Abstract

Islam and the Muslim world are very much part of the current discussions on religion and global politics. This article looks at some of the more general debates about the gradual rise of Islam in the public and political consciousness. It is not a systematic analysis of Islamic political systems or political thought nor a discussion about key thinkers of the last century. It does, however, provide a glimpse into diverse views about leadership and governance in early and more recent Islamic history. The article concentrates more on Sunni Islam though the author is well aware that this is not the normative tradition in some parts of the Muslim world. Within the context of this diversity, it looks at issues of religious diversity and how they fit into current debates about inter-religious dialogue and pluralism.     

Thomas Jefferson on the Character of an Unfree People: The Case of Spanish America

Thomas Jefferson perceived the people of Spanish America during their revolutionary struggles of the 1810s through the lens of national historical development, formulating an ambiguous attitude toward them. Although welcoming their independence movements, he questioned their ability to establish free, self‐governing republics believing that they needed to undergo a process of political maturation so that they could develop a republican character. As well as regarding the newly liberated countries of Spanish America as potential allies of the United States, Jefferson expressed concern about their becoming its economic and political rivals. Experiencing the new states as scenes of permanent military conflicts, he even suggested temporary restoration of metropolitan control over them by Spain.     

Matching Rates and Mandates: Federalism and Children's Medicaid Enrollment

An important focus of the federalism literature has been on analyzing the responses of lower levels of government to the financial incentives of intergovernmental grant programs. But grant conditions and mandates are also important features of grant programs, and these have received considerably less attention in the literature. This article examines the implementation of federal Medicaid mandates during the 1980s and 1990s to explicitly compare the relative responses of the states to matching rate incentives and statutory mandates. Using individual-level information on program enrollment to measure policy implementation, the results indicate that the federal mandates led to large changes in children's Medicaid enrollment. In contrast, the effects of the federal matching rate were much more limited. Moreover, the statutory mandates not only raised the average level of enrollment but also reduced the degree of policy variation across the states. While the current pattern of federal Medicaid matching payments reduces policy variation to some extent, these effects are modest compared to the impacts of the mandates. Mandates are a more powerful instrument for national policymakers than the comparatively weak fiscal incentives provided by matching rates.