Matching Items (2,476)
Filtering by
- Creators: Debussy, Claude, 1862-1918
Description
This dissertation examines the intellectual debate over the concept of laissez faire in American political thought, which took place between 1880 and 1914. It presents an account of how the concept of laissez faire rose to prominence in American political thought during the Gilded Age as well as an account of how critics responded. The Gilded Age was a period of revolutionary economic change which prompted a renewed debate over the proper role of government. Much of the existing scholarship devoted to this period takes the form of historical overview or extensive focus on a particular thinker. My own analysis focuses on the specific arguments of three particular thinkers: Henry Demarest Lloyd, Thorstein Veblen, and Herbert Croly.
In order to explain the various features of this intellectual debate, I present a conceptual analysis of laissez faire and identify its key components. I also provide a critical comparison of the competing economic visions of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton to illustrate the relationship between laissez faire thinking and the American Founding. I then present the laissez faire arguments of nineteenth-century thinkers, particularly the Social Darwinists. Finally, I critically appraise the arguments presented by Lloyd, Veblen, and Croly in order to show how the prevailing notions about the proper role of government were changing.
In this research, I show that the debate over laissez faire was about more than identifying the appropriate economic policy for the United States. It centered upon competing theories of society, human nature, and economic progress. In criticizing laissez faire, Lloyd, Veblen, and Croly also challenged the traditional American commitment to individualism, and in so doing, they laid the intellectual groundwork for a more affirmative government and the emergence of the welfare state in the twentieth century.
In order to explain the various features of this intellectual debate, I present a conceptual analysis of laissez faire and identify its key components. I also provide a critical comparison of the competing economic visions of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton to illustrate the relationship between laissez faire thinking and the American Founding. I then present the laissez faire arguments of nineteenth-century thinkers, particularly the Social Darwinists. Finally, I critically appraise the arguments presented by Lloyd, Veblen, and Croly in order to show how the prevailing notions about the proper role of government were changing.
In this research, I show that the debate over laissez faire was about more than identifying the appropriate economic policy for the United States. It centered upon competing theories of society, human nature, and economic progress. In criticizing laissez faire, Lloyd, Veblen, and Croly also challenged the traditional American commitment to individualism, and in so doing, they laid the intellectual groundwork for a more affirmative government and the emergence of the welfare state in the twentieth century.
ContributorsBlanchard, Brian (Author) / Ball, Terence (Thesis advisor) / Simhony, Avital (Committee member) / Crittenden, William (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
ContributorsDebussy, Claude, 1862-1918 (Composer)
ContributorsDebussy, Claude, 1862-1918 (Composer)
ContributorsDebussy, Claude, 1862-1918 (Composer)
ContributorsDebussy, Claude, 1862-1918 (Composer)
ContributorsDebussy, Claude, 1862-1918 (Composer)
Description
This study examines the factors that shape the timing of a passage of a piece of controversial gender equality legislation by conducting a case study of the abolition of the family-head system in South Korea. This study draws on the method of process tracing with the data collected from the archives and the interviews. The case study mainly compares the legislative processes for the bills on the abolition of the family-head system in 16th and the 17th National Assemblies, in which the bills resulted to opposite outcomes.
This study argues that the institutions of the legislative process mediate the impact of relevant actors for gender equality policymaking. In the bill initiation stage, only a small number of the elected officials are required to introduce a bill, and women representatives serve a vital role as they are more likely to introduce feminist bills than their male colleagues. This study argues that 1) the background of the women influencing their commitment to feminist agendas, 2) strong women’s movements contributing to issue saliency, and thereby the policy priorities of the issue, and 3) the resources and constraints inside the party for feminist policymaking influenced by party ideology, shape how active women representatives will be in advocating controversial gender equality agendas.
In the later stages of policymaking, the efforts of a small number of women members are offset by that of political parties. Emphasizing the positive agenda control of the majority party and the negative agenda control of the minority parties, this study suggests that party issue positions are critical for the outcome of the bill. To explain the party issue position (re)shape, this study underlines 1) public opinion, 2) the emergence of new voter groups leading to the decline of the cleavage politics, 3) new party entry, and 4) women in the party and the party leadership. The findings highlight that the major parties’ issue positions shift in the 17th National Assembly greatly contributed to amplifying the bargaining power of the key allies and weakening the institutional leverage of the opponents, leading to the successful legislation of the bill.
This study argues that the institutions of the legislative process mediate the impact of relevant actors for gender equality policymaking. In the bill initiation stage, only a small number of the elected officials are required to introduce a bill, and women representatives serve a vital role as they are more likely to introduce feminist bills than their male colleagues. This study argues that 1) the background of the women influencing their commitment to feminist agendas, 2) strong women’s movements contributing to issue saliency, and thereby the policy priorities of the issue, and 3) the resources and constraints inside the party for feminist policymaking influenced by party ideology, shape how active women representatives will be in advocating controversial gender equality agendas.
In the later stages of policymaking, the efforts of a small number of women members are offset by that of political parties. Emphasizing the positive agenda control of the majority party and the negative agenda control of the minority parties, this study suggests that party issue positions are critical for the outcome of the bill. To explain the party issue position (re)shape, this study underlines 1) public opinion, 2) the emergence of new voter groups leading to the decline of the cleavage politics, 3) new party entry, and 4) women in the party and the party leadership. The findings highlight that the major parties’ issue positions shift in the 17th National Assembly greatly contributed to amplifying the bargaining power of the key allies and weakening the institutional leverage of the opponents, leading to the successful legislation of the bill.
ContributorsLee, Mijun (Author) / Kittilson, Miki (Thesis advisor) / Simhony, Avital (Committee member) / Shair-Rosenfield, Sarah (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
This study asks the question: does gender-based discrimination exists within Arizona State University's Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), and if so, what are the effects of such discrimination? Within this study, discrimination is defined as: the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs, rather than on individual merit. The researcher predicted that this study would show that gender-based discrimination operates within the masculine military culture of Army ROTC at ASU, resulting from women's hyper-visibility and evidenced by their lack of positive recognition and disbelief in having a voice in the program. These expectations were based on background research claiming that the token status of women in military roles causes them to be more heavily scrutinized, and they consequentially try to attain success by adapting to the masculine military culture by which they are constantly measured. For the purposes of this study, success is defined as: the attainment of wealth, favor, or eminence . This study relies on exploratory interviews and an online survey conducted with male and female Army ROTC cadets of all grade levels at Arizona State University. The interviews and survey collected demographic information and perspectives on individual experiences to establish an understanding of privilege and marginalization within the program. These results do support the prediction that women in Army ROTC at ASU face discrimination based on their unique visibility and lack of positive recognition and voice in the program. Likewise, the survey results indicate that race also has a significant impact on one's experience in Army ROTC, which is discussed later in this study in regard to needs for future research. ASU Army ROTC includes approximately 100 cadets, and approximately 30-40 of those cadets participated in this study. Additionally, the University of Arizona and the Northern Arizona University Army ROTC programs were invited to participate in this study and declined to do so, which would have offered a greater sample population. Nonetheless, the results of this research will be useful for analysis and further discussion of gender-equality in Army ROTC at Arizona State University.
ContributorsAllemang, Lindsey Ann (Author) / Wood, Reed (Thesis director) / Switzer, Heather (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
Description
Genocide studies have traditionally focused on the perpetrator’s intent to eradicate a particular identity-based group, using the Holocaust as their model and point of comparison. Although some aspects of the Holocaust were undoubtedly unique, recent scholars have sought to challenge the notion that it was a singular phenomenon. Instead, they draw attention to a recurring pattern of genocidal events throughout history by shifting the focus from intent to structure. One particular branch of scholars seeks to connect the ideology and tactics of imperialism with certain genocidal events. These anti-imperialist genocide scholars concede that their model cannot account for all genocides, but still claim that it creates meaningful connections between genocides committed by Western colonialist powers and those that have occurred in a neoimperialist world order shaped according to Western interests. The latter includes genocides in postcolonial states, which these scholars believe were shaped by the scars of their colonial past, as well as genocides in which imperial hegemons assisted local perpetrators. Imperialist and former colonial powers have contributed meaningfully to all of these kinds of genocides, yet their contributions have largely been ignored due to their own influence on the creation of the current international order. Incorporating the anti-imperialist perspective into the core doctrine of genocide studies may lead to breakthroughs in areas of related policy and practice, such as prevention and accountability.
ContributorsParker, Ashleigh Mae (Author) / Thies, Cameron (Thesis director) / Sivak, Henry (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / Department of English (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
Description
Political polarization is the coalescence of political parties -- and the individuals of which parties are composed -- around opposing ends of the ideological spectrum. Political parties in the United States have always been divided, however, in recent years this division has only intensified. Recently, polarization has also wound its way to the Supreme Court and the nomination processes of justices to the Court. This paper examines how prevalent polarization in the Supreme Court nomination process has become by looking specifically at the failed nomination of Judge Merrick Garland and the confirmations of now-Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. This is accomplished by comparing the ideologies and qualifications of the three most recent nominees to those of previous nominees, as well as analysing the ideological composition of the Senate at the times of the individual nominations.
ContributorsJoss, Jacob (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis director) / Critchlow, Donald (Committee member) / Computer Science and Engineering Program (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05