- Table View
- List View
Debating Cuban Exceptionalism (Studies of the Americas)
by L. Whitehead B. HoffmanThis volume traces the developments in Cuba following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent definitive demise of state socialism. Topics covered include: the reasons for the persistence of 'the Cuban model,' and an examination of the interaction between elite and non-elite actors, as well as between domestic and international forces.
Debating Democracy: Do We Need More or Less? (Debating Ethics)
by Jason Brennan Hélène LandemoreAround the world, faith in democracy is falling. Russia, Turkey, and Venezuela have moved from flawed democracies to authoritarian regimes. Brexit and the rise of far-right parties show that even stable Western democracies are struggling. Partisanship and mutual distrust are increasing. What, if anything, should we do about these problems? In this accessible work, leading philosophers Jason Brennan and Hélène Landemore debate whether the solution lies in having less democracy or more. Brennan argues that democracy has systematic flaws, and that democracy does not and cannot work the way most of us commonly assume. He argues the best solution is to limit democracy's scope and to experiment with certain voting systems that can overcome democracy's problems. Landemore argues that democracy, defined as a regime that distributes power equally and inclusively, is a better way to generate good governance than oligarchies of knowledge. To her, the crisis of "representative democracy" comes in large part from its glaring democratic deficits. The solution is not just more democracy, but a better kind, which Landemore theorizes as "open democracy."
Debating Democracy: Do We Need More or Less? (Debating Ethics)
by Jason Brennan Hélène LandemoreAround the world, faith in democracy is falling. Russia, Turkey, and Venezuela have moved from flawed democracies to authoritarian regimes. Brexit and the rise of far-right parties show that even stable Western democracies are struggling. Partisanship and mutual distrust are increasing. What, if anything, should we do about these problems? In this accessible work, leading philosophers Jason Brennan and Hélène Landemore debate whether the solution lies in having less democracy or more. Brennan argues that democracy has systematic flaws, and that democracy does not and cannot work the way most of us commonly assume. He argues the best solution is to limit democracy's scope and to experiment with certain voting systems that can overcome democracy's problems. Landemore argues that democracy, defined as a regime that distributes power equally and inclusively, is a better way to generate good governance than oligarchies of knowledge. To her, the crisis of "representative democracy" comes in large part from its glaring democratic deficits. The solution is not just more democracy, but a better kind, which Landemore theorizes as "open democracy."
Debating Development Discourse: Institutional and Popular Perspectives (International Political Economy Series)
by David B. Moore Gerald J. SchmitzThis book combines critical historical analysis and case studies of the theory and practice of post-1945 international development. Beginning with a Gramscian analysis of institutional and academic development discourse, continuing with critiques of international institutions' current neo-liberal economic and 'governance' practices, and followed by studies of African moral opposition to structural adjustment's 'scientific capitalism', South African housing struggles, Zimbabwean development strategies, Costa Rican agrarian NGO's, and northern Albertan public environmental hearings, it advocates deepening radical and popular participatory democracy.
Debating Difference: Group Rights and Liberal Democracy in India
by Rochana BajpaiHow can inequalities between groups be addressed, while at the same time sustaining common citizenship? Debating Difference offers a new approach to this key question for liberal democracies, demonstrating that argument and debate is crucial for reconciling the demands of group equality and civic unity. India offers a unique case of group-differentiated rights. Using landmark constitutional and legislative debates on minority rights and quotas, Rochana Bajpai develops a model for interpreting post-Independence group rights that hinges on the interplay between five principal normative concepts—secularism, democracy, social justice, national unity, and development. Tracing the shifting meanings of these values over time, this book demonstrates that liberal and democratic concepts are more sophisticated and widely shared in the Indian polity than is commonly believed. The author identifies the limits of Western-centric accounts of multiculturalism. She also establishes the significance of political rhetoric for explanations of policy shifts and political change.
Debating Education: Is There a Role for Markets? (Debating Ethics)
by Harry Brighouse David SchmidtzDebating Education puts two leading scholars in conversation with each other on the subject of education-specifically, what role, if any, markets should play in policy reform. David Schmidtz and Harry Brighouse each advance nuanced arguments and respond to each other, presenting contrasting views on education as a public good. Schmidtz argues on behalf of a market-driven approach, making the case that educational opportunities do not need to be equal in order to be good. The ideal of education is not equally preparing students to win a race but maximally preparing each student to make a contribution. Harry Brighouse instead focuses on inequality, particularly the unequal distribution of rewards. He argues that justice requires prioritizing the prospects of the bottom 30% of the population, whose life prospects are much worse than justice would demand, given the current wealth of society. The moral imperative of education should be to improve this group's range of opportunities. Brighouse expresses serious skepticism that market mechanisms are capable of this task, due to imperfections in educational markets, a lack of appropriate regulations, political influence, and other systemic obstacles. At its heart, Debating Education is concerned with the nature, function, and legitimate scope of voluntary exchange as a form of social relation, and how education raises concerns that are not at issue when it comes to trading relationships between consenting adults. It will appeal to scholars and students of ethics alike, specifically those who study political philosophy, philosophy of education, as well as individuals interested in educational and public policy.
DEBATING EDUCATION DEBETH C: Is There a Role for Markets? (Debating Ethics)
by David Schmidtz Harry BrighouseDebating Education puts two leading scholars in conversation with each other on the subject of education-specifically, what role, if any, markets should play in policy reform. David Schmidtz and Harry Brighouse each advance nuanced arguments and respond to each other, presenting contrasting views on education as a public good. Schmidtz argues on behalf of a market-driven approach, making the case that educational opportunities do not need to be equal in order to be good. The ideal of education is not equally preparing students to win a race but maximally preparing each student to make a contribution. Harry Brighouse instead focuses on inequality, particularly the unequal distribution of rewards. He argues that justice requires prioritizing the prospects of the bottom 30% of the population, whose life prospects are much worse than justice would demand, given the current wealth of society. The moral imperative of education should be to improve this group's range of opportunities. Brighouse expresses serious skepticism that market mechanisms are capable of this task, due to imperfections in educational markets, a lack of appropriate regulations, political influence, and other systemic obstacles. At its heart, Debating Education is concerned with the nature, function, and legitimate scope of voluntary exchange as a form of social relation, and how education raises concerns that are not at issue when it comes to trading relationships between consenting adults. It will appeal to scholars and students of ethics alike, specifically those who study political philosophy, philosophy of education, as well as individuals interested in educational and public policy.
Debating Europe in National Parliaments: Public Justification and Political Polarization (Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics)
by Frank WendlerThis book investigates recent public debates about the European Union (EU) in national parliaments, which have become the primary arena for public debate about the EU. Responding to claims about a politicization of European governance, the author investigates the link between two dimensions of debate – the discursive justification and party political contestation of decision-making in the EU. Embedded in a comparison between the legislatures of four Member States (Austria, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom), the main finding of the book is that generalizable links can be identified between the use of different argumentative frames and patterns of party political polarization. These insights help to clarify the context conditions in which patterns of left/right and government/opposition politics are replaced by more atypical forms of polarization. In a comparative perspective, the author demonstrates that party political factors are a more relevant factor for variation than thematic or country-specific cultural or institutional factors. Case studies include debates on EU Treaty Reform, the Eurozone crisis, and EU enlargement.
Debating European Citizenship (IMISCOE Research Series)
by Rainer BauböckThis open access book raises crucial questions about the citizenship of the European Union. Is it a new citizenship beyond the nation-state although it is derived from Member State nationality? Who should get it? What rights and duties does it entail? Should EU citizens living in other Member States be able to vote there in national elections? If there are tensions between free movement and social rights, which should take priority? And should the European Court of Justice determine what European citizenship is about or the legislative institutions of the EU or national parliaments? This book collects a wide range of answers to these questions from legal scholars, political scientists, and political practitioners. It is structured as a series of three conversations in which authors respond to each other. This exchange of arguments provides unique depth to the debate.
Debating European Security and Defense Policy: Understanding the Complexity (Global Interdisciplinary Studies Series)
by Maxime H. LarivéDr. Larivé questions whether there is such a thing as a European defense and security policy. This book analyzes the integration process by clearly illustrating to the reader the two sides of the argument in order to understand the complexity of the problems in the different stages of the creation and implementation of the European defense policy. In doing so, this study asks the question of why has the process been so halting and of such limited scope? Structured in three parts: Theories, analyzing the theoretical debates raised by the positivist paradigms of neorealism, liberalism and constructivism on European security; History, reflecting on the impacts of the Cold War, American foreign policy, the 2008 economic crisis, and the evolution of European strategy; and, Actors, by looking at the role of European institutions, Member States, and the CSDP on the transformation of the European defense policy since 1998. Each chapter is composed of sub questions allowing the reader to grasp the different forces explaining the deepening or lack of the deepening process of the CSDP. Ultimately, this book offers a unique base for fostering discussion, understanding and critical thinking on the CSDP.
Debating European Security and Defense Policy: Understanding the Complexity (Global Interdisciplinary Studies Series)
by Maxime H. LarivéDr. Larivé questions whether there is such a thing as a European defense and security policy. This book analyzes the integration process by clearly illustrating to the reader the two sides of the argument in order to understand the complexity of the problems in the different stages of the creation and implementation of the European defense policy. In doing so, this study asks the question of why has the process been so halting and of such limited scope? Structured in three parts: Theories, analyzing the theoretical debates raised by the positivist paradigms of neorealism, liberalism and constructivism on European security; History, reflecting on the impacts of the Cold War, American foreign policy, the 2008 economic crisis, and the evolution of European strategy; and, Actors, by looking at the role of European institutions, Member States, and the CSDP on the transformation of the European defense policy since 1998. Each chapter is composed of sub questions allowing the reader to grasp the different forces explaining the deepening or lack of the deepening process of the CSDP. Ultimately, this book offers a unique base for fostering discussion, understanding and critical thinking on the CSDP.
Debating Foreign Policy in the Renaissance: Speeches on War and Peace by Francesco Guicciardini
by Marco CesaThis book brings together 11 pairs of opposing speeches on foreign policy written by Florentine statesman and historian Francesco Guicciardini (1483–1540), freshly translated with new commentary. Collectively, they constitute a remarkable collection of debates on war, peace, alliance and more. Incisive and elegant, the debates contain an early formulation of concepts such as the balance of power and the security dilemma – ideas that are still in international politics today. This book highlights the importance of Guicciardini’s work for the evolution of international theory and explains why he, alongside Machiavelli, should be considered a leading figure of Realism.
Debating Foreign Policy in the Renaissance: Speeches on War and Peace by Francesco Guicciardini
by Marco CesaThis book brings together 11 pairs of opposing speeches on foreign policy written by Florentine statesman and historian Francesco Guicciardini (1483–1540), freshly translated with new commentary. Collectively, they constitute a remarkable collection of debates on war, peace, alliance and more. Incisive and elegant, the debates contain an early formulation of concepts such as the balance of power and the security dilemma – ideas that are still in international politics today. This book highlights the importance of Guicciardini’s work for the evolution of international theory and explains why he, alongside Machiavelli, should be considered a leading figure of Realism.
Debating Genocide (Debates in World History)
by Lisa Pine Peter N. StearnsThis book explores the subject of genocide through key debates and case studies. It analyses the dynamics of genocide – the processes and mechanisms of acts committed with the intention of destroying, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, religious or racial group – in order to shed light upon its origins, characteristics and consequences.Debating Genocide begins with an introduction to the concept of genocide. It then examines the colonial genocides at the end of the 19th- and start of the 20th-centuries; the Armenian Genocide of 1915-16; the Nazi 'Final Solution'; the Nazi genocide of the Gypsies; mass murder in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge; the genocides in the 1990s in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda; and the genocide in Sudan in the early 21st century. It also includes a thematic chapter which covers gender and genocide, as well as issues of memory and memorialisation. Finally, the book considers how genocides end, as well as the questions of resolution and denial, with Lisa Pine examining the debates around prediction and prevention and the R2P (Responsibility to Protect) initiative.This book is crucial for any students wanting to understand why genocides have occurred, why they still occur and what the key historical discussions around this subject entail.
Debating Genocide (Debates in World History)
by Lisa Pine Peter N. StearnsThis book explores the subject of genocide through key debates and case studies. It analyses the dynamics of genocide – the processes and mechanisms of acts committed with the intention of destroying, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, religious or racial group – in order to shed light upon its origins, characteristics and consequences.Debating Genocide begins with an introduction to the concept of genocide. It then examines the colonial genocides at the end of the 19th- and start of the 20th-centuries; the Armenian Genocide of 1915-16; the Nazi 'Final Solution'; the Nazi genocide of the Gypsies; mass murder in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge; the genocides in the 1990s in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda; and the genocide in Sudan in the early 21st century. It also includes a thematic chapter which covers gender and genocide, as well as issues of memory and memorialisation. Finally, the book considers how genocides end, as well as the questions of resolution and denial, with Lisa Pine examining the debates around prediction and prevention and the R2P (Responsibility to Protect) initiative.This book is crucial for any students wanting to understand why genocides have occurred, why they still occur and what the key historical discussions around this subject entail.
Debating Globalization
by Anthony Barnett David Held Casper HendersonDebating Globalization is a short, accessible introduction to the debate about globalization written by many of the most prominent figures in the field. Published by Polity in association with openDemocracy, the book is notable not just for focusing on the pressing difficulties facing our world, but also on solutions. Rich and positive suggestions are made for reshaping globalization into a force that will work for humans everywhere. In an extended analysis, David Held provides a robust critique of the present order and sets out his alternative vision. Building on arguments he made in Global Covenant, he calls for a new global political agenda, informed by social democratic political values. His analysis has been criticized by leading figures and their responses follow in this book. There are chapters by, among others, Martin Wolf, Roger Scruton, Grahame Thompson, David Mepham, Meghnad Desai, Maria Livanos Cattaui, Patrick Bond, Benjamin Barber, John Elkington, Takashi Inoguchi, Narcís Serra, and Anne-Marie Slaughter and Thomas N. Hale. The volume ends with David Held's reply to his critics. The book provides a fascinating introduction to the debate about globalization today.
Debating Globalization: An Introduction To The Globalization Debate
by David HeldDebating Globalization is a short, accessible introduction to the debate about globalization written by many of the most prominent figures in the field. Published by Polity in association with openDemocracy, the book is notable not just for focusing on the pressing difficulties facing our world, but also on solutions. Rich and positive suggestions are made for reshaping globalization into a force that will work for humans everywhere. In an extended analysis, David Held provides a robust critique of the present order and sets out his alternative vision. Building on arguments he made in Global Covenant, he calls for a new global political agenda, informed by social democratic political values. His analysis has been criticized by leading figures and their responses follow in this book. There are chapters by, among others, Martin Wolf, Roger Scruton, Grahame Thompson, David Mepham, Meghnad Desai, Maria Livanos Cattaui, Patrick Bond, Benjamin Barber, John Elkington, Takashi Inoguchi, Narcís Serra, and Anne-Marie Slaughter and Thomas N. Hale. The volume ends with David Held's reply to his critics. The book provides a fascinating introduction to the debate about globalization today.
Debating Gun Control: How Much Regulation Do We Need? (Debating Ethics)
by David DeGrazia Lester H. HuntAmericans have a deeply ambivalent relationship to guns. The United States leads all nations in rates of private gun ownership, yet stories of gun tragedies frequent the news, spurring calls for tighter gun regulations. The debate tends to be acrimonious and is frequently misinformed and illogical. The central question is the extent to which federal or state governments should regulate gun ownership and use in the interest of public safety. In this volume, David DeGrazia and Lester Hunt examine this policy question primarily from the standpoint of ethics: What would morally defensible gun policy in the United States look like? Hunt's contribution argues that the U.S. Constitution is right to frame the right to possess a firearm as a fundamental human right. The right to arms is in this way like the right to free speech. More precisely, it is like the right to own and possess a cell phone or an internet connection. A government that banned such weapons would be violating the right of citizens to protect themselves. This is a function that governments do not perform: warding off attacks is not the same thing as punishing perpetrators after an attack has happened. Self-protection is a function that citizens must carry out themselves, either by taking passive steps (such as better locks on one's doors) or active ones (such as acquiring a gun and learning to use it safely and effectively). DeGrazia's contribution features a discussion of the Supreme Court cases asserting a constitutional right to bear arms, an analysis of moral rights, and a critique of the strongest arguments for a moral right to private gun ownership. He follows with both a consequentialist case and a rights-based case for moderately extensive gun control, before discussing gun politics and advancing policy suggestions. In debating this important topic, the authors elevate the quality of discussion from the levels that usually prevail in the public arena. DeGrazia and Hunt work in the discipline of academic philosophy, which prizes intellectual honesty, respect for opposing views, command of relevant facts, and rigorous reasoning. They bring the advantages of philosophical analysis to this highly-charged issue in the service of illuminating the strongest possible cases for and against (relatively extensive) gun regulations and whatever common ground may exist between these positions.
DEBATING GUN CONTROL DEBETH C: How Much Regulation Do We Need? (Debating Ethics)
by Lester H. Hunt David DeGraziaAmericans have a deeply ambivalent relationship to guns. The United States leads all nations in rates of private gun ownership, yet stories of gun tragedies frequent the news, spurring calls for tighter gun regulations. The debate tends to be acrimonious and is frequently misinformed and illogical. The central question is the extent to which federal or state governments should regulate gun ownership and use in the interest of public safety. In this volume, David DeGrazia and Lester Hunt examine this policy question primarily from the standpoint of ethics: What would morally defensible gun policy in the United States look like? Hunt's contribution argues that the U.S. Constitution is right to frame the right to possess a firearm as a fundamental human right. The right to arms is in this way like the right to free speech. More precisely, it is like the right to own and possess a cell phone or an internet connection. A government that banned such weapons would be violating the right of citizens to protect themselves. This is a function that governments do not perform: warding off attacks is not the same thing as punishing perpetrators after an attack has happened. Self-protection is a function that citizens must carry out themselves, either by taking passive steps (such as better locks on one's doors) or active ones (such as acquiring a gun and learning to use it safely and effectively). DeGrazia's contribution features a discussion of the Supreme Court cases asserting a constitutional right to bear arms, an analysis of moral rights, and a critique of the strongest arguments for a moral right to private gun ownership. He follows with both a consequentialist case and a rights-based case for moderately extensive gun control, before discussing gun politics and advancing policy suggestions. In debating this important topic, the authors elevate the quality of discussion from the levels that usually prevail in the public arena. DeGrazia and Hunt work in the discipline of academic philosophy, which prizes intellectual honesty, respect for opposing views, command of relevant facts, and rigorous reasoning. They bring the advantages of philosophical analysis to this highly-charged issue in the service of illuminating the strongest possible cases for and against (relatively extensive) gun regulations and whatever common ground may exist between these positions.
DEBATING HUMANITAR INTERVENTION DEBETH C: Should We Try to Save Strangers? (Debating Ethics)
by Fernando R. Tesón Bas van der VossenWhen foreign powers attack civilians, other countries face an impossible dilemma. Two courses of action emerge: either to retaliate against an abusive government on behalf of its victims, or to remain spectators. Either course offers its own perils: the former, lost lives and resources without certainty of restoring peace or preventing worse problems from proliferating; the latter, cold spectatorship that leaves a country at the mercy of corrupt rulers or to revolution. Philosophers Fernando Tesón and Bas van der Vossen offer contrasting views of humanitarian intervention, defining it as either war aimed at ending tyranny, or as violence. The authors employ the tools of impartial modern analytic philosophy, particularly just war theory, to substantiate their claims. According to Tesón, a humanitarian intervention has the same just cause as a justified revolution: ending tyranny. He analyzes the different kinds of just cause and whether or not an intervener may pursue other justified causes. For Tesón, the permissibility of humanitarian intervention is almost exclusively determined by the rules of proportionality. Bas van der Vossen, by contrast, holds that military intervention is morally impermissible in almost all cases. Justified interventions, Van der Vossen argues, must have high ex ante chance of success. Analyzing the history and prospects of intervention shows that they almost never do. Tesón and van der Vossen refer to concrete cases, and weigh the consequences of continued or future intervention in Syria, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Lybia and Egypt. By placing two philosophers in dialogue, Debating Humanitarian Intervention is not constrained by a single, unifying solution to the exclusion of all others. Rather, it considers many conceivable actions as judged by analytic philosophy, leaving the reader equipped to make her own, informed judgments.
Debating Humanitarian Intervention: Should We Try to Save Strangers? (Debating Ethics)
by Fernando R. Tesón Bas van der VossenWhen foreign powers attack civilians, other countries face an impossible dilemma. Two courses of action emerge: either to retaliate against an abusive government on behalf of its victims, or to remain spectators. Either course offers its own perils: the former, lost lives and resources without certainty of restoring peace or preventing worse problems from proliferating; the latter, cold spectatorship that leaves a country at the mercy of corrupt rulers or to revolution. Philosophers Fernando Tesón and Bas van der Vossen offer contrasting views of humanitarian intervention, defining it as either war aimed at ending tyranny, or as violence. The authors employ the tools of impartial modern analytic philosophy, particularly just war theory, to substantiate their claims. According to Tesón, a humanitarian intervention has the same just cause as a justified revolution: ending tyranny. He analyzes the different kinds of just cause and whether or not an intervener may pursue other justified causes. For Tesón, the permissibility of humanitarian intervention is almost exclusively determined by the rules of proportionality. Bas van der Vossen, by contrast, holds that military intervention is morally impermissible in almost all cases. Justified interventions, Van der Vossen argues, must have high ex ante chance of success. Analyzing the history and prospects of intervention shows that they almost never do. Tesón and van der Vossen refer to concrete cases, and weigh the consequences of continued or future intervention in Syria, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Lybia and Egypt. By placing two philosophers in dialogue, Debating Humanitarian Intervention is not constrained by a single, unifying solution to the exclusion of all others. Rather, it considers many conceivable actions as judged by analytic philosophy, leaving the reader equipped to make her own, informed judgments.
Debating Immigrants and Refugees in Central Europe: Politicising and Framing Newcomers in the Media and Political Arenas (Routledge/UACES Contemporary European Studies)
by Jan KovářThis book investigates the politicisation and framing of immigration in the media and political arena in Central Europe, examining two countries - Czechia and Slovakia - in the period surrounding the “European migrant crisis”. Following years of immigration being practically invisible as an issue in the socio-political debates in most Central and Eastern European countries, it became a key concern because of the crisis. Analyzing news media items and plenary speeches, this book reveals how securitisation eclipses humanitarian considerations, dominating the discourse around immigration and that media and politicians are the two most important intermediaries from which citizens take cues on issues they rarely experience directly themselves. Finally, it also shows how the media and political arena portray immigration differently based on the origin, religious background, and legal status of immigrants. This book will be of key interest to scholars and students of migration studies, global governance, international organisations, security studies, and media studies, as well as more broadly for public law, comparative politics and East/Central European politics.
Debating Immigrants and Refugees in Central Europe: Politicising and Framing Newcomers in the Media and Political Arenas (Routledge/UACES Contemporary European Studies)
by Jan KovářThis book investigates the politicisation and framing of immigration in the media and political arena in Central Europe, examining two countries - Czechia and Slovakia - in the period surrounding the “European migrant crisis”. Following years of immigration being practically invisible as an issue in the socio-political debates in most Central and Eastern European countries, it became a key concern because of the crisis. Analyzing news media items and plenary speeches, this book reveals how securitisation eclipses humanitarian considerations, dominating the discourse around immigration and that media and politicians are the two most important intermediaries from which citizens take cues on issues they rarely experience directly themselves. Finally, it also shows how the media and political arena portray immigration differently based on the origin, religious background, and legal status of immigrants. This book will be of key interest to scholars and students of migration studies, global governance, international organisations, security studies, and media studies, as well as more broadly for public law, comparative politics and East/Central European politics.
Debating Migration to Europe: Welfare vs Identity (World Politics and Dialogues of Civilizations)
by Raffaele MarchettiThis concise, pointed contribution to the ongoing debate in Europe on the controversial phenomena of migration will appeal to the general reader, represent a significant contribution to the scholarly debate, and be an essential teaching and discussion tool. A brief introduction from the editor, setting the contours of the political debate on migration today in Europe, prepares the reader for the book’s debate. This is followed by two very powerful and contrasting statements for and against migration to Europe, and a response from each contributor to the other. The pro-immigration chapter is written by Philippe Fargues, one of our most eminent migration scholars, whilst the anti-immigration chapter written by Anatol Lieven, a renowned expert on nationalism. The authors engage directly with the other's position, deepening the debate and searching for common ground, and suggesting solutions. This text will be of key interest to readers, scholars, and students of international migration, migration and development, European politics, political theory, and more broadly to public policy and international relations.
Debating Migration to Europe: Welfare vs Identity (World Politics and Dialogues of Civilizations)
by Raffaele MarchettiThis concise, pointed contribution to the ongoing debate in Europe on the controversial phenomena of migration will appeal to the general reader, represent a significant contribution to the scholarly debate, and be an essential teaching and discussion tool. A brief introduction from the editor, setting the contours of the political debate on migration today in Europe, prepares the reader for the book’s debate. This is followed by two very powerful and contrasting statements for and against migration to Europe, and a response from each contributor to the other. The pro-immigration chapter is written by Philippe Fargues, one of our most eminent migration scholars, whilst the anti-immigration chapter written by Anatol Lieven, a renowned expert on nationalism. The authors engage directly with the other's position, deepening the debate and searching for common ground, and suggesting solutions. This text will be of key interest to readers, scholars, and students of international migration, migration and development, European politics, political theory, and more broadly to public policy and international relations.