TL;DR: In the offensive case, a group pools resources in response to opportunities to realize its interests as discussed by the authors, which is the most top-down form of mobilization, whereas in the preventive case, the group pool resources in anticipation of future opportunities and threats.
Abstract: The word "mobilization" conveniently identifies the process by which a group goes from being a passive collection of individuals to an active participant in public life. Demobilization is the reverse process. Offensive mobilization is, however, often top-down. In the offensive case, a group pools resources in response to opportunities to realize its interests. Preparatory mobilization is no doubt the most top-down of all. In this variety, the group pools resources in anticipation of future opportunities and threats. Governmental repression is uniquely important because governments specialize in the control of mobilization and collective action: police for crowd control, troops to back them, spies and informers for infiltration, licensing to keep potential actors visible and tame. Contention for power links the mobilization model to the polity model. The word "socialism" itself originally represented the vision of a social order in which producers would control their own fates.
TL;DR: The model of the Prisoner's Dilemma is used to demonstrate that cooperation is more likely when the costs of being exploited and the gains of exploiting others are low, when the gains from mutual cooperation and the cost of mutual noncooperation are high, and when each side expects the other to cooperate.
Abstract: International anarchy and the resulting security dilemma (i.e., policies which increase one state's security tend to decrease that of others) make it difficult for states to realize their common interests. Two approaches are used to show when and why this dilemma operates less strongly and cooperation is more likely. First, the model of the Prisoner's Dilemma is used to demonstrate that cooperation is more likely when the costs of being exploited and the gains of exploiting others are low, when the gains from mutual cooperation and the costs of mutual noncooperation are high, and when each side expects the other to cooperate. Second, the security dilemma is ameliorated when the defense has the advantage over the offense and when defensive postures differ from offensive ones. These two variables, which can generate four possible security worlds, are influenced by geography and technology.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors collected suicide terrorist attacks worldwide from 1980 to 2001, 188 in all, and showed that suicide terrorism follows a strategic logic, one specifically designed to coerce modern liberal democracies to make significant territorial concessions.
Abstract: Suicide terrorism is rising around the world, but the most common explanations do not help us understand why. Religious fanaticism does not explain why the world leader in suicide terrorism is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a group that adheres to a Marxist/Leninist ideology, while existing psychological explanations have been contradicted by the widening range of socio-economic backgrounds of suicide terrorists. To advance our understanding of this growing phenomenon, this study collects the universe of suicide terrorist attacks worldwide from 1980 to 2001, 188 in all. In contrast to the existing explanations, this study shows that suicide terrorism follows a strategic logic, one specifically designed to coerce modern liberal democracies to make significant territorial concessions. Moreover, over the past two decades, suicide terrorism has been rising largely because terrorists have learned that it pays. Suicide terrorists sought to compel American and French military forces to abandon Lebanon in 1983, Israeli forces to leave Lebanon in 1985, Israeli forces to quit the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in 1994 and 1995, the Sri Lankan government to create an independent Tamil state from 1990 on, and the Turkish government to grant autonomy to the Kurds in the late 1990s. In all but the case of Turkey, the terrorist political cause made more gains after the resort to suicide operations than it had before. Thus, Western democracies should pursue policies that teach terrorists that the lesson of the 1980s and 1990s no longer holds, policies which in practice may have more to do with improving homeland security than with offensive military action.I thank Robert Art, Mia Bloom, Steven Cicala, Alex Downs, Daniel Drezner, Adria Lawrence, Sean Lynn-Jones, John Mearsheimer, Michael O'Connor, Sebastian Rosato, Lisa Weeden, the anonymous reviewers, and the members of the program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago for their superb comments. I especially thank James K. Feldman and Chaim D. Kaufmann for their excellent comments on multiple drafts. I would also like to acknowledge encouragement from the committee for the Combating Political Violence paper competition sponsored by the Institute for War and Peace Studies at Columbia University, which selected an earlier version as a winning paper.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a framework for future research and theory development in this field, and review the Scandinavian research tradition according to this framework, and provide some suggestions for the future research.
TL;DR: Apple as discussed by the authors argues that the unresponsive and bureau-cratic nature of many school systems has actually pushed people toward the right and presents the causes and effects of integrating schools into the corporate agenda and demonstrates who will be the winners and losers as the conservative restoration gains in strength.
Abstract: Many are convinced that "liberal" solutions have failed and that answers to social problems lie in a return to conservative policies and values. As this conservative offensive grows increasingly powerful in education, public schooling itself has come under attack. Michael Apple offers a powerful analysis of current debates and a compelling indictment of rightist proposals for change. Apple presents the causes and effects of integrating schools into the corporate agenda and demonstrates who will be the winners and losers as the conservative restoration gains in strength. Far from defending the status quo, Apple argues that the unresponsive and bureau-cratic nature of many school systems has actually pushed people toward the right. "Yet," he writes, "during an era when...we face the massive dismantling of the gains that have been made in social welfare, in women's control of their bodies, in relations of race, gender, and sexuality, and in whose knowledge is taught in schools, it is equally important to make certain that these gains are defended." With this dual focus, this book provides an eloquent defense of the possibility of a more democratic public education.