International Assistance to the Former Soviet Union: Conditions and Transitions1

Since the demise of the Soviet Union the newly independent states (NIS) have attempted the wholesale reform of their economic, political, and social institutions. With varying levels of success they have sought to create new institutions or reorganize old institutions, often so as to mirror similar institutions in western Europe and North America. Many nations and international organizations have sought to influence these transitions with technical assistance, foreign aid, concessional loans, and trade/investment promotion programs. In this article we attempt to bridge the conceptual, analytic, and empirical gaps between those who argue that external influences remain unimportant and those who believe that international organizations and foreign governments can support reforms. Specifically, we argue that although external assistance can play a positive role in the successful consolidation of political and economic reforms, the contribution of external assistance to the post-Soviet transitions has been limited by the institutional arrangements, technical proficiency, and political motivations of the aid providers. We thus analyze patterns of foreign assistance to demonstrate that implicit conditionalities imposed by aid donors upon recipient countries—with regard to geographic distribution, program priorities, timing, and graduation criteria—often force recipients to comply with reform agendas that may or may not be favorable for the recipient.     

The Northern Ireland Conflict: A Framework for Discussion1

At the Dublin Antipode Conference of March 1978, a debate occurred on the Northern Ireland question. In what follows we present extended versions of two of the papers (those by Boal and Anderson). We have also included other pertinent material in the form of Pringle's essay and Perron's review. Hopefully both of these papers will add a further dimension to the debate. In the case of Anderson's paper, due to both time and space limitations, the editorial collective reduced his original work substantially.     

TORONTO-OTTAWA-MONTREAL: CONCENTRATIONS MAJEURES CANADIENNES DE L'INNOVATION PAR LA RECHERCHE-DEVELOPPEMENT1

Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa appear as the top three Canadian scientific and technological centres. R&D divisions of private or public industrial corporations, governmental laboratories, universities, and higher education institutions play a great part in the formation and development of these technology-oriented complexes. Key technology industries are strongly operative; however, traditional industrial sectors (e.g., wood, pulp and paper, energy, food products) are also innovative, particularly in Montreal and Toronto. In every centre, the innovation process presents some distinctive characteristics. What with the laboratories of federal ministries and agencies, and the R&D plants of technologically advancedlarge corporations, Ottawa distinguishes itself by telecommunications, electronics instruments, and defence systems. Aeronautic and spatial industries form the largest scope of innovation processes in Montreal, although R&D in energy, pulp and paper, and transportation equipments are also important activities. In Toronto, the higher-level innovation functions are concentrated in several industrial sectors: electronics (more particularly computer and software development), aeronautic, chemical and pharmaceutical goods, energy, food products and automobile parts. Input-output linkages are limited between these three technology-oriented complexes. Only a few Canadian industrial corporations have separate R&D plants located in two cities, and more rarely, three. Federal laboratories are especially concentrated in Ottawa, and provincial R&D centres in Toronto and Montreal. On the contrary, more important linkages exist between each complex and its foreign counterparts, or within each complex, thanks to large, highly skilled labour markers, and spin-off and subcontracting activities. Toronto, Montréal et Ottawa représentent les trois pôles majeurs de ?on; innovation scientifique et technologique au Canada. Grâce a de nombreuses unités de R&D industrielle, aux laboratoirés des gouvernements feadéral et provinciaux, aux universityés'y sont développés de grands complexes dans lesquels les activités de haute technologie jouent un rôle moteur. Mais ne doit pas être négligée, du moins à Toronto et Montréal, la production ?on; innovations dans des secteurs traditionnels (bois, pâte et papier, énergie, agro-alimentaire). Chaque pôle ?on;innovation a sa propre histoire, ses structures particulieres. Ottawa se caracterise par le poids des laboratoires du gouvernement fédéral et ceux des centres de R&D de grandes compagnies travaillant plutôt dans les domaines des télécommunications, des instruments élctroniques et des systèmes de défense. À Montréal, domine le secteur aéronautique et spatial, mais les unités de R&D dans les domaines de ?on; énergie, des pâtes et papiers, du matériel de transport, notamment, occupent une place importante également. Cette variété se retrouve à Toronto o ?on; innovation se développe dans les industries electroniques (en particulier en in formatique), aéronautiques, chimiques et pharmaceutiques, les branches de ?on; énergie, de ?on; alimentaire ou de ?on; automobile. Entre ces grands complexes, les rapports apparaissent limités. Rares sont les entreprises ayant des centres distincts de R&D localisés dans chaque pôle. Les laboratoires du gouvernement féderal se situent essentiellement à Ottawa, et ceux des gouvernements provinciaux à Toronto et Montreal. Par contre, ? importantes interdépendances se manifestent entre chaque pôle et ?on; échelle internationale, et à?on; intérieur de chacun grâce à des marchés de ?on; emploi qualifyé importants, à?on; essaimage et à la sous-traitance. Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal: L'innovation par la recherche-developpement 257     

ANALYZING POLITICAL FEASIBILITY: POLITICAL SCIENTISTS1 UNIQUE CONTRIBUTION TO POLICY ANALYSIS

Political feasibility analysis examines the actors and events involved in each stage of a political policy-making process and anticipates the likely resolution of a policy problem as it works its way through the policy process. Despite the prominence of policy analysis in the social sciences over the past decade or so, there has been virtually no scholarly work concerning the analysis of the political feasibility of policy proposals. Political scientists, because of their central concern with the design and effect of the policy-making process, have a unique responsibility to contribute a way to evaluate systematically political feasibility. While all policy analysts, regardless of their disciplinary backgrounds, need to be concerned with assessing political feasibility, political scientists should be particularly mindful of its importance in improving public policy. While anticipating the likely outcome of a dynamic policy process is necessarily a difficult task, an analysis of the political feasibility of a proposed alternative can provide insight into the nature of the policy process as well as identify the criteria that must be met for an alternative to be successful. This article discusses a variety of factors that need to be considered in assessing political feasibility. After arguing the need to design political feasibility analysis frameworks, this essay reviews political scientists' current treatment of political feasibility analysis and outlines a general way to undertake such efforts.     

Three Old-South-Arabian Fragments in the Wellcome Collection, University of Wales, Swansea1

Three Old-South-Arabian fragments are published here, probably all of Qatabanian origin: a stela fragment (of less usual type) of a man, Sharah; a statue base of common type of one Khawlil of clan Hidrum; and a small base for a head (now lost) of Habum of (clan) Garaymum.