Browsing Political Science Theses and Dissertations by Issue Date

Baumgold, Deborah Andersen, Daniel Andersen, Daniel 2012-12-07T23:13:14Z 2012-12-07T23:13:14Z 2012 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/12536 This dissertation argues for a dialogic grounding for deliberative democracy. Building on Habermasian theories of communication and discourse, deliberative democrats think better (more just, fair, and rational) democratic politics is possible because communication itself (in whatever form it takes) provides the legitimate mechanism for the transformation of citizens' opinions and political will. However, this is a problematic foundation for unleashing the normative potential inherent in citizen engagement. There are good reasons to suspect that a politics based in rational communication cannot actually produce the kinds of changes deliberativists insist are possible. Practical limitations of scale and scope make deliberative democracy difficult to envision. And the Habermasian claim about the inherent rationality in communication is challenged by postmodern notions of language and by conceptions of the embodied processes of reasoning. However, there is another normative foundation hinted at within the deliberative literature. Some theorists gesture toward a theory of transformation rooted more directly in the experiences associated with interpersonal relations, rather than in the language that is exchanged within these interactions. Following this lead, I turn to the work of Martin Buber to outline a dialogic theory that can better explain the intuitive sense that when citizens meet and speak, they are (at least potentially) opened up to new understandings. This theory, based in Buber's "I-Thou relation" and conception of "genuine dialogue," offers an account of the phenomenon located in an interpersonal relation of a particular type in which partners in dialogue are opened up to one another. I argue that a politics rooted in this dialogic experience provides a better account of the transformative potential in citizen engagement. Building on this new orientation towards dialogue, I then demonstrate some practical institutional innovations that are well equipped to take advantage of a politics anchored in dialogue. Along these lines, the dissertation culminates in a discussion of the Restorative Listening Project in Portland, Oregon, where dialogic meeting was a central focus of the institution's efforts to deal with the problem of gentrification in the city's NE neighborhoods. en_US University of Oregon All Rights Reserved. Buber Deliberation Democracy Dialogue Habermas From Deliberation to Dialogue: The Role of the I-Thou in Democratic Experience Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Berk, Gerald Chastain, William Chastain, William 2012-10-26T03:58:37Z 2012-10-26T03:58:37Z 2012 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/12371 The Iraq War was an era of crisis and change within the U.S. Army. The failure of the army to adapt to the war revealed the obsolescence of post Vietnam army culture. Innovation experiences in the war were directionless and a new intellectual framework was required to deal with warfare that the army had long disliked: counterinsurgency. Major organizational change was accomplished by a coalition of generals led by Generals David Petraeus, Jack Keane, and Ray Odierno. These officers established a new intellectual framework with FM 3-24, Counterinsurgency. They challenged institutional military orthodoxy in Washington by proposing a renewed commitment to victory. Finally, they demonstrated the efficacy of counterinsurgency theory through a military campaign that “proved” FM 3-24. This major, yet limited, change in service culture fractured the consensus of the post Vietnam narrative and initiated an ongoing reinterpretation of the army’s philosophy of war. en_US University of Oregon All Rights Reserved. Iraq War Military Culture Organizational Change The Iraq War and the Post Vietnam Narrative: Culture and Change in the U.S. Army, 2005-2007 Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Mitchell, Ronald Cleveland, Clayton 2013-07-11T19:58:59Z 2013-07-11T19:58:59Z 2013-07-11 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/12971 Why have states requested international authorization for their projections of military force more after 1989? One perspective suggests powerful states should not make such requests. Rather, they should look to their own power instead of international organizations. Another view suggests international authorization is a way to provide credible signals about state intentions. A third perspective suggests states view international authorization of military force as appropriate. I establish that states have changed their behavior, requesting international authorization more often after 1989. Then, I develop hypotheses involving material power, burden-sharing, informational signaling, and international norms. I assess their ability to explain the increase in authorization requests through evidence from over 150 military force projections by a wide range of states and through a detailed evaluation of United States behavior. The U.S. provides a strong test case for the theories evaluated, since powerful states should be least susceptible to pressures for requesting authorization, and yet it does so more frequently after 1989. I find the expectation that states should request international authorization emerged after the U.S. set a precedent during the Persian Gulf War. The end of the Cold War changed the perceived "viability" of different strategies for projecting military force for U.S. policy-makers. Requesting authorization from the UN became a plausible alternative. The decision to request international authorization--and the justifications U.S. decision makers offered for doing so--led to the expectation by other states that the U.S. would do so for future projections of military force. This international norm helps explain the politics of international authorization for the airstrikes on Iraq (1998), the Iraq War (2003) and the Libyan intervention (2011). The response of other countries to the Clinton Administration's failure to request authorization for airstrikes on Iraq in 1998 demonstrates that expectations regarding whether the U.S. should request authorization had shifted. The subsequent consolidation of the norm helps explain the requests for authorization by the Bush Administration for the Iraq War in 2003 and by the Obama Administration for Libya in 2011. The dissertation increases our understanding of the relationship, and the role of authority, between states and international organizations. en_US University of Oregon All Rights Reserved. International Norms International Organizations Military Intervention Security UN Security Council U.S. Foreign Policy Storming the Security Council: The Revolution in UNSC Authority Over the Projection of Military Force Electronic Thesis or Dissertation Ph.D. doctoral Department of Political Science University of Oregon

Parsons, Craig Abney, Margaret 2013-10-03T23:36:21Z 2013-10-03T23:36:21Z 2013-10-03 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/13315 During the 2011 Arab Spring protests, the Presidents of Egypt and Tunisia lost their seats as a result of popular protests. While protests occurred in Morocco during the same time, King Mohammed VI maintained his throne. I argue that the Moroccan king was able to maintain his power because of factors that he has because he is a king. These benefits, including dual religious and political legitimacy, additional control over the military, and a political situation that make King Mohammed the center of the Moroccan political sphere, are not available to the region's presidents. en_US University of Oregon All Rights Reserved. Arab Spring King Mohammed VI of Morocco Monarchy Morocco Avoiding the Arab Spring? The Politics of Legitimacy in King Mohammed VI's Morocco Electronic Thesis or Dissertation M.A. masters Department of Political Science University of Oregon

Southwell, Priscilla Bhattacharya, Debasis 2014-06-17T19:41:44Z 2014-06-17T19:41:44Z 2014-06-17 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/17911 During the last four decades, precisely from the early 1970s, U.S. foreign policy has played a dominant role in the U.S. political landscape. The current political discourse is predominantly marked by divided government, polarized politics and gridlock. Such a contentious political environment has proved to be detrimental for efficient and effective policy-making in foreign policy. There are significant factors that profoundly complicate the process of decision making and congressional-presidential relations. Partisan and ideological differences under the conditions of divided government are dominant in the current political process and in turn affect the prospects of legislative-executive consensus and dissension. Other factors such as media salience, public opinion, and electoral imperatives also complicate the dynamics of legislative-executive relations. In an era in which heightened political brinkmanship has enveloped Washington politics, continuum of consensus and dissension between Congress and the president on strategic foreign policy issues has virtually become a norm. This dissertation examines the dynamics of legislative-executive relations in two high politics U.S. foreign policy issue areas of treaty process and war powers. It appears that in contemporary U.S. foreign policymaking the trajectory of a continuum of legislative-executive consensus and dissension is a new normal and potentially irreversible, as Congress and the president try ardently to preserve their respective constitutional prerogatives. Empirical investigation across these two issue areas demonstrates a new era of a resurgent Congress marked by its greater assertive role and acting as a consequential player in the foreign policy domain. The passage of the War Powers Resolution in 1973 by Congress, overriding a presidential veto, has profound implications in the modern political landscape. It was a pivotal moment that permanently transformed the future road map of congressional-presidential relations. Since then the U.S. political system has been relentlessly experiencing an institutional power struggle in the foreign policy domain. Findings suggest that when Congress determines to confront the president and exercise its constitutional responsibilities it becomes very difficult for the president to overcome such congressional resistance. Interbranch competition has virtually created a consistent trajectory of a continuum of legislative-executive consensus and dissension in the foreign policy decision-making process. en_US University of Oregon All Rights Reserved. Congress Consensus and Dissension Foreign Policy President Treaty Powers War Powers Legislative-Executive Relations and U.S. Foreign Policy: Continuum of Consensus and Dissension in Strategic Political Decision Process from 1970 to 2010 Electronic Thesis or Dissertation Ph.D. doctoral Department of Political Science University of Oregon

Lowndes, Joseph Pasha, Abdurrahman 2014-06-17T19:44:07Z 2014-06-17T19:44:07Z 2014-06-17 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/17917 This case study examines the Self-Help Cooperative Movement (SHCM). Largely ignored by social scientists for the past eighty years, the movement took place during the Great Depression and, while national in scope, it was concentrated in Los Angeles. This movement combined traditional protest tactics with pre-figurative politics; its goal was to provide full employment for all Americans through the proliferation of worker and consumer cooperatives. Despite a very promising start in 1931, the movement collapsed and disintegrated by 1940. This dissertation examines the reasons for the SHCM's early successes and later its failures. The SHCM's early successes were made possible through their alliances with Japanese farmers (who lived on the outskirts of Los Angeles) and people of color in general, Los Angeles businesses and conservative business leaders, and with sympathetic politicians and state agencies. These alliances were, in turn, made possible by the inherent ambiguity of the SHCM's politics, which incorporated both conservative practices (e.g., self-help) and socialist practices (e.g., workplace democracy). This unique mixture, what the Los Angeles Times called "voluntary communism", generated widespread support among hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers and among conservative, socialist, and liberal political actors. In 1933, the SHCM underwent a profound transformation when Upton Sinclair and the End Poverty in California movement assumed leadership of the cooperatives and the California Democratic Party, promising to place state support behind the cooperative movement and in the process both end unemployment and undermine capitalism. The gubernatorial campaign of 1934 became a referendum on the cooperatives. Over the course of the prolonged bitterly fought campaign the cooperatives became associated with communism, and their liberal and conservative allies responded by discontinuing their support. With the loss of this political and financial assistance the SHCM slowly faded away. While the movement failed to achieve its specific goals, its impact on California politics, along with other Utopian Socialist movements in Los Angeles during this period, was immense. By the 1940s both political parties in California were supporting liberal and socialist initiatives (e.g., universal health-care and mass university education). en_US University of Oregon All Rights Reserved. California Cooperatives Great Depression Los Angeles Political Economy Race and Ethnicity The Self-Help Cooperative Movement in Los Angeles, 1931-1940 Electronic Thesis or Dissertation Ph.D. doctoral Department of Political Science University of Oregon

Cramer, Jane Baxter, Corbett 2014-09-29T17:46:11Z 2014-09-29 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/18367 Between 2001 and 2008 the U.S. launched approximately 50 lethal strikes using unmanned aerial vehicles, (UAVs) in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. In contrast, the Obama administration has launched over 417 strikes since taking office in 2009. Some analysts have stated that the increase is the inevitable result of President Obama's decision to eliminate extrajudicial detention. They argue that the Obama administration painted itself into a corner of "no-quarters" warfare wherein enemy combatants outside of a declared war zone are no longer eligible for capture. However, this view fails to recognize that the expansion of the U.S. targeted killing program was already gaining momentum prior to President Obama's inauguration. The rapid expansion of the U.S. targeted killing program after 2008 has been primarily contingent on three factors: The development and availability of UAVs, the Executive's evolving approach to terror suspects, and the context of each strike decision. en_US University of Oregon All Rights Reserved. Truth Within the Rubble: Understanding the Expansion of the U.S. Targeted Killing Program Electronic Thesis or Dissertation 2015-03-29 M.S. masters Department of Political Science University of Oregon

Parsons, Craig Littlepage, Kelley 2015-01-14T15:59:12Z 2015-01-14T15:59:12Z 2015-01-14 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/18741 My dissertation project seeks to understand when and how do national judges play an active and significant role in how international legal orders do or do not affect their polities. Specifically, I look at when and how British judges play a role in how European Union law through the European Court of Justice and European human rights law through the European Court of Human Rights affect the British polity. These international legal orders contain both vertical and horizontal aspects. Vertical aspects include the highest court and its judges defined by the treaty, which operates as the international, hierarchical authority on the treaty and is tasked with ensuring the compliance of the member states of the treaty. Horizontal aspects include member state courts and judges who interact with other member state courts and judges as equals voluntarily to share an understanding of the law. Britain is interesting because it may seem like a counterintuitive place to find such dynamics. Britain has a strong resistance to international authority, a deeply entrenched idea of Parliamentary Supremacy, and a dualist legal tradition where Parliament translates international law into domestic law prior to its use by the courts, which contributes to a lack of expectation of British judges engaging in international judicial activism, making Britain a hard case. In this context, we should expect that international law only matters to the extent that domestic actors are forced to incorporate it by a strong international legal order with vertical supremacy and unambiguous authority. To the contrary, my dissertation shows that British judges are quite active in many international legal orders in ways that do not merely reflect the degree of established vertical legal authority. Through dynamics that are quite autonomous from British politicians' difficult interactions with international authority, British judges play a very active role in managing and integrating international law into British politics. To see these dynamics and understand how international law has affected British politics, we must pay special attention to horizontal legal integration. Horizontal legal integration occurs when judges intentionally and selectively borrow legal concepts and precedents from other national or international jurisdictions. en_US University of Oregon All Rights Reserved. Commonwealth of Nations European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice European Union Supreme Court of the United Kingdom United Kingdom Law Lords Crafting International Legal Orders: Horizontal Legal Integration and the Borrowing of Foreign Law in British Courts Electronic Thesis or Dissertation Ph.D. doctoral Department of Political Science University of Oregon

Berk, Gerald Thompson, Nicolas 2015-08-18T23:09:41Z 2015-08-18T23:09:41Z 2015-08-18 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/19309 This dissertation analyzes the institutional development and policy performance of the Federal Reserve System from 1913-1968. Whereas existing scholarship assumes Federal Reserve institutions have remained static since 1913, this project demonstrates that the Federal Reserve was a site of extensive institutional experimentation across its first half century of operations. The 1913 Federal Reserve Act created thirteen autonomous agencies without offering guidance regarding how these units should function as a coherent system. The extent to which this institutional jumble congealed into a central bank-like organization has fluctuated over time. Institutional changes were driven by external shocks and shaped by an ongoing internal debate about normative systemic governance. Some agents called for greater institutional centralization to increase the system’s strategic capacity. Others drew upon shared liberal ideals to defend the system’s decentralized governance traditions. These debates resulted in frequent reconstitutions of the policy-making regime. This dissertation argues the Fed’s temporally-specific institutional configurations were consequential for United States monetary and exchange rate policies. During periods of relatively centralized Federal Reserve governance, internationally-oriented agents wielded control over the system’s policy-making levers to help stabilize the dollar’s exchange rate. During periods of institutional fragmentation, by contrast, monetary policies grew increasingly rigid, promoting dollar instability. Consequently, the structure of American central banking institutions has important implications for both the domestic and international political economies. This project suggests that insights from the positive study of institutions should be applied to the design of central banking institutions. Although institutional fragmentation can check arbitrary power, it likewise can paralyze the policy-making process and undermine the formation and steady pursuit of long-term strategic goals. en_US University of Oregon All Rights Reserved. Imagining the Fed: Central Bank Structure and United States Monetary Governance (1913-1968) Electronic Thesis or Dissertation Ph.D. doctoral Department of Political Science University of Oregon

Berk, Gerald Hejny, Jessica 2015-08-18T23:14:59Z 2015-08-18 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/19355 In this dissertation, I generate a theoretical grounding for the practice of collaborative environmental governance that emerges out of practice. The overall architecture of this dissertation traces the structure of Deweyan reconstruction. I first set out the problems that plague federal environmental governance and the turn to collaborative environmental governance in practice, situating them in historical context. I use forest policy and the case study of the Quincy Library Group to illustrate both the pathologies of federal regulation and the turn to collaboration and to inform my reconstruction of deliberation. I argue that the dominant Habermasian model of deliberation is inadequate to theorizing collaborative governance due to its abstraction and focus on the justificatory aspect of deliberation. I rethink the concept of deliberation, mobilizing critiques of the Habermasian model and resources in American pragmatist philosophy to reconceptualize deliberation as embodied, narrative, and oriented to experimental problem-solving. Drawing on empirical accounts of environmental collaboration, I argue that collaboration is centrally about members of a community working together across difference to solve shared concrete problems. Rational argument plays a role in collaboration, but it is not its transformatory engine. Rather, the building of trust between participants through narrative and storytelling is what enables transformation of beliefs and interests and makes collaboration possible. In contrast to the political theory literature, I assert that deliberation is oriented not only to generating democratic legitimacy but also to solving practical problems. Collaborative governance is both deliberative and experimental, and our theorizing must account for this. In the concluding chapter, I address the practical question of the institutional design of collaborative environmental governance. This theoretical work is integral to furthering policy-making practice because it provides a way for both policy-makers and scholars of public policy to understand what is at stake in the move to collaborative governance and provides a critical standard to guide the design and evaluation of collaboration in practice. For environmental policy-makers, it sheds light on why we have reason to be hopeful about collaborative policy-making and how we can strengthen these efforts on the ground. en_US University of Oregon All Rights Reserved. Pragmatist Policy-making: Rethinking Deliberation and Experimentation in Contemporary Environmental Governance Electronic Thesis or Dissertation 10000-01-01 Ph.D. doctoral Department of Political Science University of Oregon